Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Housing (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of housing in Scotland. I suspect that housing is still the dominant issue raised in most hon. Members' constituency surgeries, and the trend has certainly accelerated over the past few years.
It seems to me, as I am sure it does to many hon. Members, that the right to live in a warm, dry and secure home is a basic human right that should be afforded to each and every person in society. The provision of decent. affordable housing is a key factor in determining quality of life, economic well-being and the health of all people. As such, it is the highest priority of the Government and every political party. In securing this debate, the Scottish National party is signalling that housing is and will remain at the top of its political agenda.
A nation cannot ever, to quote the Prime Minister, be "at ease with itself" when people are badly housed and while 500 to 1,000 people sleep rough on the streets of Scotland's cities and towns every night; while last year 40,000 households applied to local authorities as homeless. That figure equates to 78,000 people—about the population of a town the size of Paisley. Nor can the nation be at ease with itself while 150,000 children in Scotland are living in damp housing, where they are at risk from cold-related illnesses such as bronchitis and asthma.
Acceptance of the basic right to a home is one factor that distinguishes a civilised society from a non-civilised society. Decent. affordable housing is also the passport to participation in society. We know that people who live rough on our streets are denied not only the right to a home, but often the right to a job, as well as proper access to the health service and even social security benefits.
Housing authorities are uniquely placed to act as a centrepiece of care in the community. That means more than bricks and mortar; it means taking preventive action and providing community support and strategic planning for people with support needs, not only those living in institutional care but those who are already resident in the community and who require support. If there is to be any hope of meeting the needs of such people, more, not less, central Government funding is required to adjust the housing stock accordingly.
We know from a variety of authoritative sources, and from our experience as Members of Parliament hearing constituents' pleas for help in our surgeries, that the basic

right to a warm, decent. affordable home is denied to far too many citizens in Scotland. That is either because they have no homes or because the properties that they occupy fail to meet the most basic housing standards.
Housing problems in Scotland are of a magnitude that can be properly described as a crisis. That is certainly the view of the housing professionals' organisation, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland. In its recent report, "Investing in Scotland's Housing?", it said:
There is a real crisis of underinvestment in housing",
and it called on the Government seriously to address the issue.
The 1996 house condition survey has just begun, so we do not yet know the updated profile of Scottish housing, but it is worth recalling the results of the 1991 survey, for which hon. Members campaigned for many years. It found that one in 20 occupied houses in Scotland—95,000 houses—were below tolerable standards. One in eight homes—267,000 homes in Scotland—suffered from damp. Indeed, more than a quarter of Scottish households—392,000 homes—were affected by damp, condensation or mould. Shelter in Scotland has estimated that, today, about 186,000 households are on council house waiting lists in Scotland—about one third of the total council house stock, compared with one seventh in 1981.
Over the past few years, the realisation has dawned that the crisis in Scottish housing is not confined to urban areas—it extends to rural areas, too. Conditions in rural areas are particularly severe. Between 1985 and 1995, rural homelessness increased by 154 per cent. A report to be published in the coming week by Shelter will expose the extent of rural housing problems.
Figures for the number of houses that are below the tolerable standard are now highest in rural areas. I see the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) in the Chamber. I am sure that she is aware that 24 per cent. of houses in her constituency are below the tolerable standard, which is the highest of any area bar the Western Isles. On average, rural houses are 50 per cent. more likely to be affected by dampness. One in six homes-63,000 in rural areas—have a dampness problem, and that proportion rises to a third of all homes in the privately rented sector in rural areas.
If we examine the Government's response to the housing crisis in rural and urban areas, we find that it simply fails to match the scale of the problem. In fact, Government policy has contributed directly to making matters worse in many respects. They have slashed housing expenditure, which in turn has led to a decline in investment. According to figures from Shelter, between 1989–90 and 1995–96, capital investment in housing fell by 26 per cent. in real terms. If investment had been maintained at 1989 levels, an additional 27,000 affordable homes could have been built during that period.
The total level of housing support grant made available to Scottish councils next year will be a paltry £19.4 million, compared with £228 million in 1981. The scale of that cut testifies to the savage onslaught that councils, as housing providers, have suffered over the past decade at the hands of the Government.
All sectors of public provision—council housing, Scottish Homes and housing associations—are facing massive cuts. According to the Chartered Institute of


Housing in Scotland, housing expenditure faces an overall cut of 22 per cent. in 1996–97. Local authority allocations will be cut by 17 per cent. in cash terms, and that is certainly not enough to tackle housing stock disrepair or homelessness. The Scottish Homes budget is to be cut by £55 million—a 21 per cent. cut in real terms—which will severely and seriously reduce the development programme for housing associations and co-operatives.
Yesterday, I had a series of meetings with housing associations and campaign groups in Scotland. One of the points that each of them made related to their resentment that the cut in the Scottish Homes budget did not receive the same publicity or interest as a smaller, although equally undesirable cut in the Scottish Enterprise budget. They took that as a signal that housing is currently not a sufficiently high priority in the political debate in Scotland. I hope that this debate and hon. Members' speeches will redress part of that impression.
Last year in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister of State, Scottish Office, assured my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that
There will be more than £2.8 billion for housing in the coming three years."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 3 May 1995; c. 8.]
I shall be listening very carefully to hear whether the Minister cares to repeat that that is still the target for the next three years. Many housing organisations say that that target will not be met.
Across Scotland, investment in council housing will decrease by at least one fifth. Capital allocations for Scottish local authorities totalled £423 million for 1995–96, which was made up of some £254 million in receipts and £168 million in borrowing consents. That was an 8 per cent. reduction in cash terms and an 11 per cent. reduction in real terms for the year.
Scottish Office cuts in housing investment in the coming financial year will exacerbate the problems that councils will suffer because of the shortfall in receipts. Tenants who live in the poorest housing and who have the lowest incomes—those whose homes need essential repairs or who need a home itself—will lose the most. The survey on capital allocations found that 30 out of the 42 authorities that responded are experiencing a shortfall in receipts this year. Due to a reduced number of houses being bought through the right to buy, local authorities will have a shortfall of at least £33 million in capital receipts this financial year.
Local authorities will, of course, now be required to use 25 per cent. of receipts to help pay off the housing debt, rising to 50 per cent. in the following year. In itself, paying off that debt will take millions of pounds out of housing provision in Scotland. The Chartered Institute of Housing reports councils as summarising their situation as follows:
Contracts may have to be postponed, rewiring will have to be deferred as will heating replacement. The start date for projects will have to be delayed, which will also impact on spending for 1996–97. Authorities modernisation programmes will have to be curtailed.
In the new Aberdeenshire council, my new local authority, it is estimated that investment will decrease by at least 32 per cent. in real terms. In 1997–98, further investment cuts of 17 per cent. are planned.
The approved development programme for Scottish Homes has been slashed from £325 million to £280 million. That will mean that the number of housing association starts will be cut from 9,000 in 1995–96 to just over 6,000 in 1996–97, a reduction of one third. In other words, 3,000 families who would have been adequately housed are set to lose out in the coming financial year because of cuts in the programme.
As a result of funding cuts, there is pressure on housing associations to increase the percentage of private finance and to decrease quality, leading to higher rents and increased long-term costs. The Government are proposing to sell the UK loan book to the private sector. One of the questions that I should like the Minister to deal with today is whether the Scottish Office will support a separate sale of the Scottish loan book, thereby opening the door to at least the possibility of Scottish housing associations buying out their own debt.
As I said, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet representatives of housing organisations in Scotland. I met representatives of The Big Issue, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, Shelter in Scotland, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland. They all agreed that the overriding challenge facing Scottish housing is lack of investment, and each of them argued that the resources available for housing are inadequate to deal with the problem.
Hon. Members will recall that, during the 1992 US presidential election, those working to secure a Democrat victory constantly and famously reminded voters that the major issue in the campaign could be summarised in the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." The Minister responsible for housing in Scotland should have the phrase, "It's investment, stupid," on his ministerial desk, because that basic political and social fact encapsulates the problem and the solution facing Scottish housing. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations put the situation rather well in its manifesto, "Putting Housing on the Political Agenda", when it said:
Housing is a long term national and community asset. We believe that our current housing crisis will not be resolved until a greater proportion of our nation's wealth is invested in our housing stock.
The short-sightedness in the Government's approach could not be more apparent. They fail to recognise that investment in public housing is not only of social benefit, but almost certainly of economic benefit. In addition, it brings substantial advantages in the reduction of health service costs to the national health service, and has a role to play in reducing crime. Housing is a key factor in economic regeneration, reducing unemployment and kick-starting local and national economies.
The Chartered Institute of Housing has estimated that, for each £1 invested in housing, there is an immediate return of 50p in reduced welfare benefits, increased personal and company taxation and in the generation of local expenditure. Shelter calculated that every house in poor condition costs the health service £300 per year per occupant, putting into stark relief the relationship between poor housing and bad health.
The cost to the national health service of cold and damp housing alone has been estimated at £800 million per year. That figure is for the UK, from the Standing Conference on Public Health working group in 1994.
The average energy rating of a Scottish home, on a scale of one to 10, is only 3.3. I am sure that hon. Members need no reminding that there are 3,000 cold-related deaths in Scotland every year, yet, for a 5 per cent. increase in building costs, we know that energy efficiency can be raised by up to 50 per cent. We also know that asthma directly costs the NHS £437 million, according to current figures, and that that figure is increasing yearly. It is estimated that a further £400 million in lost productivity and £70 million in costs to the Department of Social Security result from the prevalence of asthma.
Much crime and anti-social behaviour such as burglary and vandalism is housing-related. The Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which published "Housing and Crime—How well we are managing", found that a major element in managing crime is partnership with the police, local agencies and community groups, but whether that approach is via management initiatives such as this, security-led initiatives or design initiatives, they all require proper resourcing to have any chance of success.
The Scottish National party offers an alternative, which we think is capable of dealing with the scale of the Scottish housing crisis. We want to establish a Ministry of Housing, to provide strategic policy direction, with a Cabinet Minister with sole responsibility for housing. Our intention is to transfer three quarters of the councils' housing capital debt to central Government over a four-year period, which would release up to £945 million of new resources that would otherwise be spent servicing that debt. At the moment, the bulk of council rent in Scotland goes to paying loan charges from previously accumulated capital debt.
We argue for the replacement of Scottish Homes with a new agency, whose sole purpose would be to provide good-quality housing and a high standard of public sector management. It is remarkable that we have in Scottish Homes one of the few housing agencies in the world whose sole intention and drive seems to be to get out of housing and managing houses.
Through the transfer of capital debt to central Government over a four-year period, Scottish councils would have substantial additional resources to tackle dampness, insulate homes and repair and maintain existing stock, and an additional 10,000 empty homes would be returned to use in that period.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Let us be clear about this: is the hon. Gentleman saying that the whole of the local authorities' debt in Scotland should be transferred to the national taxpayer, because that debt currently stands at about £1,040 per head of the population north of the border?

Mr. Salmond: I was suggesting that 75 per cent. of the £4 billion of accumulated capital debt should be transferred to central Government over a four-year period. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that will have no effect on the public sector borrowing requirement, as the PSBR is both a local and a national borrowing requirement. The £900 million-plus over four years that I have estimated is the effect of deferred interest will then be paid by central Government.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that when the water services industry in England was transferred to the private sector, a £4 billion to £5 billion debt write-off, or dowry,

was awarded to the private companies. Although there has recently been a £700 million write-off of capital debt in the Scottish industry, it has been accompanied by a lowering of the spending provisions, to give no additional resources to the industry in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman is in a poor position to argue that transferring capital debt—or writing it off, for that matter—is not a viable policy option, when the Government have been keen to adopt it when sending industries into the private sector. We are suggesting that the same mechanism be used to refinance the public sector, without the privatisation process. The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that the mechanism of transferring capital debt was first suggested by, I think, the late Sir Robert Grieve, one of the great authoritative figures in Scottish housing, in a report on Glasgow housing some years ago. I think that Robert Grieve would have forgotten more about Scottish housing than the hon. Gentleman is ever likely to learn.
With those new resources, we would be able to carry out a substantial programme of new build—perhaps 11,000 new homes, to be developed by local authorities in partnership with housing associations.
I shall soon conclude my remarks in order to allow a number of hon. Members the opportunity to speak, some of whose speeches have, I note, been signalled in the Scottish press. I would not want to deprive readers of the Evening News in Edinburgh of the advantage of hearing a contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm).
I have some specific questions for the Minister. The housing organisations told me yesterday that they were concerned—I am choosing my words carefully—that the Minister with responsibility for housing was about to announce a rough sleepers initiative in Scotland. They were concerned not that he was about to announce the initiative, but because it seemed that the initiative was to have no additional resources, unlike that in England, which received a total of £250 million for London and elsewhere.
Housing associations and bodies in Scotland expressed concern that the Minister was minded to announced a rough sleepers initiative involving the secondment of housing staff from Scottish Homes, but no additional resources. I am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity to allay the concern that he might announce such an initiative without the resources required to make a difference.
I have at various times heard the Minister talk about high public expenditure on housing in Scotland. The argument that anything spent in the public sector represents some sort of subsidy, even when it is not subsidised—by and large, housing in Scotland is not now subsidised because of the decline in revenue support—whereas private sector housing, which is subsidised, and rightly so, does not represent subsidy, is foolish. If he compares the accounts of public housing provision in England and Wales with those in Scotland and removes the capital debt overhang, which, I suggest, would be a good and viable policy option for any Government, he will find that expenditure per house in England is currently higher in the public sector than in Scotland.
I cite figures provided by the Library, which estimates that last year, in terms of housing revenue account expenditure, £2,070 was spent per house in England and


Wales compared with £1,680 in Scotland. Given what we know about the quality of Scottish housing stock, is the Minister satisfied that there is such a discrepancy in the public sector between expenditure per house in Scotland and expenditure per house in England and Wales?
Unlike the Government, who take the attitude that anything in the public sector is bad and anything in the private sector is good, the Scottish National party has no ideological bias in favour of any form of housing, public or private. In fact, we should like owner-occupation to be made a lower risk by continuing to allow tax relief, investigating the feasibility of fixed-rate mortgages and restoring grants to those who have the problem of trying to maintain older housing stock in the private sector in durable condition.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that the balance of housing in England has been a severe problem for the English economy. In the boom periods—for example, that of the 1980s—economic expansion was diverted into the housing market, leading to a rapid escalation in house prices, which was, in turn, a contributory factor to the stop being applied to economic expansion. In more recent years in England, the overhang of negative equity has been a feature in depressing consumer expenditure and has led to problems in the English economy.
The Minister might like to reflect on the fact that one reason why the Scottish economy has been performing marginally better than the English economy in the past few years has been that the balance of our housing stock is substantially different. That view was supported in a recent book by Gavin McCrone, the former Scottish Office economic adviser. There is substantial evidence of the advantage of having a balance between the public and private sector, so can it really be a good thing that the Minister with responsibility for housing recently said in Shelter's publication that it was his ambition to have no council houses at all in the whole of Scotland? That is an ideological ambition that bears no relation whatever to what is best for the economy, the housing stock or our people.
No country can rest easily on its wealth and opportunity while its people live in squalor. The SNP has a vision of Scotland—a Scotland of fresh walls and bright windows, a Scotland where homes are free of fungus and condensation, a Scotland where children do not wheeze and rattle. It is a grand vision, but, in a civilised country, it is no more than the people deserve.
Scotland needs a new roof over its head, a roof that keeps each and every citizen dry, warm and secure. Despite the catcalling of the so-called Housing Minister, I suggest that most of us want to get on with the task of building it.,

Mr. Phil Gallie: One reason why Scots do not face negative equity is connected not with the balance between public and private sector but with their good sense. They did not go mad, as people did in the south-east of England some years ago, and pay massive sums for overvalued properties. Scots kept a balance and purchased at the right level. That is a great credit to all Scots and the fundamental reason why we do not have such problems in Scotland.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that ordinary people in England and Wales are more stupid than people in Scotland? That is what his comparison implies.

Mr. Gallie: Three, four or five years ago, people in the south-east of England did not use sound judgment. I make no apologies for saying that. Opposition Members are pointing at my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). I know that their geography is a bit out, but Southport is certainly not in the south-east of England, on which area the problem centred. It affected not only the people but the housing industry, which became greedy and created long-term problems for itself.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) fails to recognise the massive change in Scotland in recent years. I give credit to the Scottish National party, which, supported by Conservatives between 1977 and 1979 in the jointly controlled Cunninghame district council, pushed ahead with the privatisation programme on council houses. We started the council house sale programme. That is a great credit to the Scottish nationalists and to the Conservatives. We stood out against the Labour party, which was burying its head in the sand. Happily, it has changed its attitudes recently.
There have been massive changes in housing schemes right across Scotland. There is massive investment, not from the public sector, but from private owners—from the individuals in the houses. Council house schemes that used to have an austere feeling about them and looked dull back in the 1960s and 1970s have undergone a massive turnaround. That says much for the Government's policy of selling council houses.
From 63 per cent. of houses being in public ownership, the figure is now about 39 per cent.—a massive turnaround. That is a great credit to Scots, across the board. It has met the dreams of many Scots who wanted to own their own properties. I hope that it will continue. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan failed to recognise that massive investment. Apart from that, the Government have permitted investment in local authority housing. Some £1 billion will be pushed into local authority housing over the next three years, despite the massive reduction in the number of local authority houses. Since 1979, over £6 billion has been spent on local authority housing. That is a considerable investment, in which the Government can take considerable pride.
In addition, since the inception of Scottish Homes, an extra £2 billion has been put into public sector housing stock. That does not take account of the massive amounts of money from the Treasury and, above all, from taxpayers' pockets, via the housing benefit scheme. A heck of a lot of the cash that has been passed on to local authorities for council housing comes from the benefit scheme. Some 70 to 72 per cent. of local government revenue for local authority housing comes direct from the Treasury or through the benefits budget. That should not be overlooked.
The change in the balance of housing is a marvellous example of devolution in practice—removing the controls of Government, councillors and people interfering in other people's affairs, by passing on responsibility to individuals who want to manage their own affairs. That is real devolution—not creating another layer of politicians, but giving people the right to judge and determine for themselves. Once again, the Government should take great pride in that.
Opposition Members have a misconception about levels of capital investment and the fact that capital receipts from the sale of local authority housing have not been allowed to be passed on to local authorities for reinvestment in their housing stock. In England, that has been the case until recently, but in Scotland it has not. Money realised through the sale of council housing stock has gone back into that stock. I give great credit to the Conservative administration of Kyle and Carrick district council over the past four years, which has invested in and brought up to date the houses under its control. It has done a magnificent job of upgrading, which has been much welcomed by tenants.

Mr. Salmond: From the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I take it that he will vigorously oppose the proposals to force local authorities into repayment of debt as opposed to investing in the modernisation schemes that he is describing.

Mr. Gallie: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that we can pass debt from one area of the public sector to another. It is all the same. If a debt was passed to the central Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman proposed earlier, it would change only the pocket from which the taxpayer pays for the debt burden. Privatisation of companies, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was a different case. At the same time as we got rid of debt, we passed on the requirement for investment to a different pocket—the private sector. It was obliged to invest after privatisation. There has been massive investment by the private sector in the water industry in England. That must be welcome.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the hon. Gentleman oppose Government policy on writing off water debt in Scotland? All the things that the Government said could not be done have suddenly been done in respect of water. Why have they not been done in respect of housing, which would help solve Scotland's massive housing problem, which the hon. Gentleman is ignoring?

Mr. Gallie: I am not ignoring it. Local authorities were responsible for incurring that debt. They should carry it forward.

Mr. Welsh: What about the water authorities?

Mr. Gallie: The new water authorities are different bodies, a different ball-game. That debt will be paid for by the Treasury and, ultimately, by taxpayers across the country. It is a transfer of resources. Housing, and the budget suggestion of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, are different. In Scotland, the water authorities' debt has been contained in the Scottish budget. It has not passed on to the national Treasury, but is contained in the Scottish block grant. That would have to be the case if we changed the rules on housing. I do not believe that other services in Scotland could stand that. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan laughs, but services such as health and education need all the cash that can be pushed in. We cannot offload the debt on to the national Treasury. That would not be acceptable.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Given that there is currently more

leverage in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, should we not strike a balance? We should spend half the money available on improving the infrastructure of our housing stock. However, as local authorities in Scotland are in debt to the tune of more than £5.3 billion, it is right and proper that some of the money should go to pay off that debt, which costs some £154 per head of the population per year.

Mr. Gallie: I sympathise with those comments. I could see the point of local authorities carrying debt and even extending it some years ago, when inflation was out of control. People said that it would be impossible to bring inflation back into line, but this Government tackled the problem. Inflation is now pegged at 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. and that removes the advantage of carrying a high debt burden. A balance must be struck now and we must hold debt at its present level rather than incurring further debt.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked about the poor standard of the housing stock. That point is recognised because, over the past four or five years, the Government have carried out surveys of a kind that were not carried out in the past. The surveys have identified problems that people suspected were there, but of which they were not fully aware. The problems are beginning to improve, perhaps too slowly, because all of us would like to see massive strides. Once again, I congratulate the Government on identifying the extent of the problems.
There is, of course, housing in the private sector, including rented properties. Through the Government's efforts, there has been massive investment in private housing stock. In the 1980s, there were extremely generous improvement and repair grants. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) is present for this debate. When one wanders around Glasgow, one sees the massive upgrading of the housing stock. One must recognise the massive part that the improvement and repair grants have played in raising standards in the city.
There are still areas of Glasgow where investment is needed. Strangely enough, it is most needed in the post-war housing that was provided by the local authorities, which did not always use good judgment. Many of the real problems in housing in Glasgow are found in relatively modern properties that were provided in the 1950s and 1960s.
I am concerned about the tendency in some areas of my constituency for private landlords to buy large houses and to split them so that they can be used for multiple occupancy. There are real causes for concern. In many instances, there is a lack of control by the landlords. A lack of respect is shown by many tenants who come through the housing benefit system, and who have no real interest in the properties and no real identity with the neighbourhood. Such dwellings are mushrooming in certain areas, which has a bad effect on owners and other residents there. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that problem in the months ahead, because it is serious and must be addressed.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan spoke about the need for investment in energy efficiency. We have recently had a massive disaster in Scotland following a harsh period of very cold weather. Housing stock in the private sector and in the public sector was seriously damaged, especially in the central belt. Fortunately,


people had taken precautions, especially in terms of the widespread use of loft insulation, which was mainly funded—very generously—by central Government. Virtually every pensioner in the land had access to free insulation and virtually every local authority carried out insulation programmes, with additional support from the Government. That programme has been hit hard in recent times. We must give care and attention to such issues in future.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I con-gratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on obtaining this debate and on being able to find a copy of the Edinburgh Evening News down here before 9.30 am—something that I have not managed to do.
I shall concentrate on the housing revenue account capital budget, which is the key budget for the modernisation, central heating and window replacement programmes that are so desperately needed by many of my constituents. It is also the budget for the building of new council houses, although precious few are being built nowadays.
The figure this year for the HRA capital budget in Edinburgh is £32 million. Three possible figures have been given for next year under the resource planning assumptions. Edinburgh has been told that it will get £26 million, £24 million or £22 million. Figures have been given three years in advance; if we take the central figure, Edinburgh will suffer a cut of £30 million, not taking account of inflation, in its council housing capital budget over the next three years. The Greater Pilton area in north Edinburgh, which is part of my constituency, will lose £11 million of desperately needed housing investment over the same period. I shall describe the effect that that will have on my constituency.
If we have the same amount next year as we have had this year, we could have some new council houses in the West Granton area of my constituency. As a result of the cut, even if we get the highest figure, there will be no new council houses there. The Minister will say, "Okay, let the private sector do it." However, attracting private sector money for houses for rent in that area is a problem. Even if we are successful in attracting private sector money, there will be fewer houses for rent than there would have been, and the rents will be higher.
We have a serious problem in Edinburgh. Only 16 per cent. of the stock is council housing. I know that the Minister wants to continue to increase home ownership, but the reality is that many people cannot afford to buy their houses and, because of increasing job insecurity, that situation is becoming more common. We shall have a serious problem in terms of the number of houses available for rent and the change in the budget figure means that the problem will get worse.
The Muirhouse area is in much need of housing modernisation and new build. On the top figure that the Government have suggested—£26 million—some modernisation work can be carried out in Muirhouse. There will be no modernisation work anywhere else in Edinburgh, but there will at least be some in Muirhouse. The council has taken the view that to attract private finance into the area, it must keep up its commitment to

public housing. Obviously £26 million is not enough, but I tell the Minister that if he must pick one of the three figures, the top figure is the least that Edinburgh needs. Some modernisation work can then go ahead in Muirhouse and that may have knock-on effects on other developments in. the area. Many of the houses have already been vacated, ready for modernisation. The tenants have been devastated by the news that the programme may not go ahead and I have had many representations on the issue. I make this plea to the Minister. If he cannot go beyond £26 million, he must at least give us that amount.
The other area of my constituency that has been affected is the Granton-Royston area. Some 311 houses in Royston were expecting modernisation in the next three or four years, but that modernisation scheme has been taken out of the housing programme. Granton Medway, a street in Granton, has been the subject of two housing studies in the past few months, by Edinburgh university and by the home energy advice team. The information was sent to the Minister.
Much information has been available from those studies about the state of houses in that not untypical street. It was found that 58 per cent. of people complained of dampness, 78 per cent. of condensation and 45 per cent. of mould. Two thirds of the bedrooms surveyed were below the official tolerable standard, which means that they were so cold that they were a risk to health. Many of the health problems, especially children's respiratory problems, were described in that report. Another fact that emerged was that tenants in that street were paying between 10 and 15 per cent. of their income on heating bills—twice the national average—because of poor insulation and the poor condition of windows.
That street is not unique. Recently, I visited houses in Crewe road gardens, quite nearby, and saw many similar problems. Much work therefore needs to be done. We need far more than £26 million, but at least, if we are given that top figure suggested by the Government, some window replacement and central heating work might go ahead in the Granton and Royston areas.
If the Minister cannot go beyond £26 million, I make a plea to him that at least we may have that figure. It is still a massive cut of about 20 per cent. on the £32 million that we had this year. I know that the Minister will say that the council must sell its stock and make money in that way. There are plenty of arguments about that, which I do not have time to make. Even if the council met the target that the Government have set for next year of 1.25 million through selling stock—that is, in blocks rather than in individual sales—that would represent, even at the top figure, a massive cut for next year's budget in Edinburgh.
The Government will also say, "We are putting money into housing associations and so on and new houses can be built by them instead of by councils." We know that, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, Scottish Homes has had a massive cut in its budget and its development programme is down by £40 million next year. We know that the number of new starts by housing associations next year will be half what was planned, and that depends on Scottish Homes transferring £50 million of its stock, which may not happen, so we may have even fewer new starts than the 650 throughout Scotland about which Scottish Homes is now talking.
We have a massive housing crisis in Scotland. At the last count, there were 42,000 names on council housing waiting lists. The Scottish Office estimates that, because of demographic changes, 150,000 extra households will be required in the next 10 years.
We know from the Scottish home condition survey about the condition of Scottish houses. One in 20 is below the official tolerable standard and one in four suffers from dampness, condensation and mould. The Government's response is to slash housing expenditure, especially council housing expenditure. There is also a problem, which I do not have time to go into, with the budget for private housing, which must now compete with education and everything else for a share of a much diminished capital cake. We know that one in eight tenements in Edinburgh needs repair, and that cannot be done on present resources.
It is not only a housing problem. Investing in housing makes sense in economic and employment terms because of the direct jobs that are created and the indirect employment spin-offs. There are also health effects. Cold homes affect people's health and lead to additional national health service expenditure, they affect people's income because they must spend more on fuel and they affect the environment because people must use more fuel.
Low housing expenditure creates a vicious spiral of social and economic decline, whereas additional housing expenditure can create a virtuous circle of increased employment and better housing conditions. I make a plea to the Minister today at least to award the top figure to Edinburgh, although it must be said in conclusion that that in itself will be woefully inadequate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We are 17 minutes away from the winding-up speeches. Three hon. Gentlemen and one hon. Lady hope to catch my eye. With co-operation, I hope that all will be successful.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I had supposed that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) would seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and perhaps she will do so in a moment or two, but I shall heed your warning and speak briefly.
I listened with genuine interest to the remarks by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). We have several things in common, including the fact that we both represent parts of the British Isles that neither of us was from originally. I note from memory that the hon. Gentleman's constituency benefited considerably from the borrowing consents that were announced by the Scottish Office in the past couple of weeks. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The nationalists seem to be doing extremely well in the ballot for Wednesday morning debates. They are obviously all putting in for the same subject. I only wish that some Conservative Members had similar success.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) rightly drew attention to the Government's success in selling more than 32 per cent. of the public sector housing stock in Scotland. That transformation was founded on our belief in choice and in a property-owning democracy.
In the light of the remarks by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the general socialist desire for quantitative measures of success, let me say that we should not underestimate the fact that about £6 billion has been spent on housing stock in Scotland since 1979. An investment programme in council housing of more than £1 billion will take place in the next three years. Planned total expenditure of £3 billion is nearly three times that in England. Scottish Homes has invested more than £2 billion in Scottish housing since it came into being and has a budget of about £320 million for the coming year.
On top of the £424 million made available for housing stock investment, £16.8 million in borrowing consents has been made available to local authorities which have suffered from the fact that less money has been available as a result of decreased council house sales.

Mr. Salmond: I have some figures from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations which show that 48 per cent. of working tenants in England, are on housing benefit compared with 27 per cent. in Scotland. Is the hon. Gentleman at all worried that the Government's policies have driven so many working tenants in England into the poverty trap and on to housing benefit?

Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he makes his own point in his own way and I wish to make my own point in the two or three minutes available to me, rather than allowing him to take me down that cul-de-sac.
My party and I realise the importance of genuine investment in housing stock. We also know that public money can never be fully exploited—can never gain value for money—without complementary qualitative reforms. The failure of opposition parties to grasp that point is still the great divide that separates us from them.
As I said in the House on 6 March in the debate on education in Scotland, we have devolved a great deal of power to the Scottish people, not by imposing a tartan tax or establishing an alternative bureaucratic apparatus staffed by apparatchiks in Edinburgh, but by giving tenants the right to own a home—and what can give anyone a greater stake in society than that?
Our approach to housing has assigned a limited though significant role to Government and local authorities. We prefer to enable the individual to find a home for himself. The themes of greater opportunities for home ownership, wider choice for tenants and targeting help on the most needy are much in evidence in Scottish Office policy.
We believe in levering private sector finance to supplement public funding. We believe that the mixture of the investment from business and financial institutions with public funds creates a more permanent and effective revitalisation of housing in urban areas than spending public funds alone.
The great difference between the Conservatives and the opposition parties is that the Conservatives believe in giving the people of Scotland greater choice and devolving greater power, not only to Edinburgh and the Scottish Office, but to local councils. Long may that policy continue.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I shall be brief because this is an important debate and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. Housing in Scotland is a


national disgrace. More people in Scotland go to Members of Parliament and to councillors about the state of housing than about any other issue. Regardless of the fine words and statistics that are bandied around by the Government, an enormous number of people in Scotland live in damp and cold houses, are inadequately housed because their accommodation is the wrong size and cannot get a house in the area that they want. Those people are not being adequately looked after by the Government.
This issue does not have the attention that it deserves because so many of the opinion formers are adequately housed. Few Members of Parliament, few councillors and few journalists live in council housing and are subject to the difficulties of dampness and of cold accommodation in which a large number of our population live. Therefore, the issue does not concern the public print and it is inadequately covered on television. It is swept under the carpet because the people who suffer tend to be the less vocal and those less able to access the sources of public information. Therefore, that great disgrace is inadequately covered by the media.
The Government are pursuing a vendetta against the public sector. They have deliberately decided to cut public spending, to drive people into the private sector—in many cases, into the hands of unscrupulous private landlords who are seeking to exploit the system of housing benefit for their personal gain without regard to the quality of the accommodation that they provide. The Government have been remiss in tackling the issue. They appear willing to allow the exploitation of those in need by unscrupulous private landlords, without adequate supervision.
In the time available to me, I shall raise one other issue: the anti-social behaviour of tenants in council housing. The Government should treat this issue more seriously than they do. They ought to introduce legislation to allow councils much greater power to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Mr. Davidson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because only a limited amount of time is available.
Many people have their lives destroyed and the peace in their homes disturbed by anti-social behaviour, and the Government are not prepared to allow councils adequate powers to deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will deal with the issue in his winding-up speech and that he will promise us legislation that will enable councils to deal with those problems.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I wish to speak in the debate because of the common misconception that housing problems are pretty much the province of the big inner cities. I shall concentrate on my constituency because it is widely seen by many people as one of the more prosperous parts of Scotland—and in some ways it is. However, it still has a housing problem, both in Perth and in the rural areas. There are homeless people in Perth. Indeed, there is a growing problem—I know that that may come as a surprise to people who have swallowed some of the lazy, shorthand descriptions of

Perth and Kinross. One scheme, the churches' action for the homeless, has provided day facilities in Perth for a number of years and it has only recently felt the need to expand its activities, providing a wholly admirable day centre for the young homeless. In addition, the Cyrenians provide beds for mentally ill homeless men in Perth.
If the Under-Secretary announces a rough sleepers initiative today, he should announce that there will be some resources to go with it. If homelessness is a problem in Perth, it will be a problem in the rest of Scotland. The Cyrenians and the churches' action for the homeless are examples of what is felt to be necessary in my constituency. I assure hon. Members that there is a real unmet need.
Perth has a growing population, a factor that brings its own pressures. In the context of housing, it means a pressure on the existing stock—no matter the form of tenure. In addition, the area's desirability in terms of owner-occupation means that it is attractive to builders and that the prices are higher than in many other areas. The availability of owner-occupied housing is not matched by sufficient affordable rented accommodation. For example, the Perth housing association has to operate in an area of high land prices and competition from speculative builders in a city that is built up almost to its boundaries. There is no abundance of empty houses to be bought and renovated in Perth—as is the case in many inner cities—even if the association had the resources to do so, which it does not.
Budgetary reductions imposed on the Perth housing association in 1995–96 are already delaying site starts and limiting opportunities for site acquisitions—yet it has one of the biggest waiting lists in Scotland. Demographic projections show that in 10 years or so, Perth will be bigger than Dundee, but there is no sign of an increase in resources to cope with that growing population, at least in terms of housing. The situation is quite the reverse—for example, the Scottish Office, in cutting the budget to Scottish Homes, is ensuring that, when those cuts are passed on, the pressure in Perth will become ever worse. Fewer new starts means longer waiting lists. Is the Minister content with the fact that those who are already waiting for houses will have to wait even longer?
It is not just the housing association sector that is suffering. The savage cuts in Scottish Office grants to local authorities will have a serious effect on the provision that the voluntary sector administers. This, together with the restricted manoeuvrability of the housing associations, is likely adversely to affect bodies such as the Cyrenians, whom I have already mentioned. They know that they are not—with the eight to 10 beds that they have available—reaching everyone in the area whom they consider to be eligible. Again, there is unmet need in Perth and Kinross—one of the supposedly more prosperous parts of Scotland.
Although organisations such as the Cyrenians work hard, they cannot take up the entire responsibility. The fact that we rely on them to do so much is an indictment of the past 16 years of Tory Government. Cuts in local government budgets directly affect local authority housing provision. Information from the Perth and Kinross district council housing department shows that the waiting lists in Perth and Kinross have risen by 27 per cent. over the past six years. In response to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), let me say that that is a direct result of a reduction in investment in council housing. In the same


period, the number of applications to the housing authority from homeless people rose by more than 50 per cent. I repeat: this is in a part of Scotland that is widely regarded as being one of the most prosperous.
I am not trying to repeat a litany of local organisations involved in housing—I do not have the time and I cannot cover all the issues that I would like to cover. I am making a serious point. As I have said already, this is happening in a part of Scotland that is widely seen as being well off and prosperous. For many people in my constituency, that is true—but there are also many people for whom it is not true. They are suffering now and they will suffer even more in the future because of the Government's housing policies.
In Perth and Kinross, and in the rest of Scotland, people are suffering because of what is effectively an ideological bias against a particular sector of the housing market. That sector of the housing market is as necessary in my constituency as it is in the rest of Scotland. It is as important to the homeless people in Perth and Kinross as it is to the homeless people in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. Homelessness, wherever it strikes, has exactly the same effect on the individual, no matter where they might be.

Mr. Gallie: rose

Ms Cunningham: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is brief—we are pushed for time.

Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the extra investment that the Government have recently announced for hostels for the homeless?

Ms Cunningham: I am always happy to welcome extra investment. However, there have been years and years of reductions in investment and there has been a cumulative effect. Homelessness in my constituency is increasing, as it is elsewhere in Scotland, and has been increasing over the years that the Government have been in power. The Perth and Kinross district council has been a Tory administration for the past four years. Happily, that will be the case for only another two weeks because the voters of Perth and Kinross saw the wisdom of removing that administration and voting in a Scottish National party administration for the new unitary authority.
Those who run local authorities have to do so in the context of a Scottish Office that seems to be hostile to the idea of public sector housing. That has to be seriously addressed because an entire sector of the housing market is effectively run down. The Minister made it quite clear that he wants to see, ultimately, an end to public sector housing. That is all very well, but the vast majority of people—enormous numbers of people—will never be able to afford mortgages, certainly in such places as Perth and Kinross. There is real need in constituencies such as mine, just as there is elsewhere in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will address that subject and understand that if there are problems in Perth and Kinross, the problems in other areas must be even worse.

Mr. John McAllion: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on his good fortune in the ballot which enabled him to secure the

debate this morning and, more particularly, on his chosen subject. It has given us one of the great parliamentary occasions so far this Session in that we have witnessed the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) accusing others of being lacking in sound judgment. I am sure that the House was grateful for that.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) on their contributions to the debate. They displayed detailed and expert knowledge of the crisis facing public sector housing in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth. They all exhibited a knowledge and understanding of Scottish housing that was clearly lacking in the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who almost routinely pops up in Scottish debates to display his complete ignorance of all matters concerning Scotland. Nevertheless, he is welcome to the debate, as he provides us with entertainment, if nothing else.
I particularly welcome the debate this morning as, by my calculation, it doubles the time provided for debating housing in Scotland on the Floor of the House. The only other debate on these matters so far this Session is on the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order, on which the Government have to spend one and a half hours every year. In this Session, there have been just three hours on the Floor of the House in which Members elected in Scotland have had the opportunity to debate one of the most important subjects to the people of Scotland. That, more than anything else, makes the case for establishing a Scottish Parliament where Scottish housing can be given a proper national focus and where it can be debated by the elected representatives of the Scottish people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): How many debates have the Opposition initiated on housing in Scotland and how many applications have been made through the usual channels for such a debate?

Mr. McAllion: The most recent debate on housing in Scotland was in the Scottish Grand Committee. That debate was initiated by the Opposition. Although the Scottish Grand Committee is part of the House, it is not a Scottish Parliament established in Scotland to debate Scottish issues—and that must happen.
Although there has been little debate in Westminster on Scottish housing, there is a real debate in Scotland among those who are interested in housing. The basic demand that has arisen out of that debate is for increased investment in the housing stock. That demand now has widespread support across Scotland.
Shelter, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are widely respected bodies with huge experience of Scottish housing. They are all knowledgeable about Scottish housing and call for a massive programme of additional investment to meet the housing crisis in Scotland.
Those organisations propose additional investment of about £580 million in each of the next five years. If that programme were realised, it would allow 13,000 affordable rented homes to be built in Scotland in each


year. It would halve the numbers of houses below the tolerable standard in Scotland and restore repair and grant expenditure to the heady levels last experienced under Baroness Thatcher. Ministers cannot call those demands irresponsible. They have not been conjured up out of thin air, but are based on a detailed knowledge of housing needs in Scotland.
One such example is the demand for housing which has been generated by the increasing number of elderly people in Scotland. In 1992, the number of people over 75 represented about 6 per cent. of the Scottish population; by 2032, they will represent 11 per cent. of the Scottish population—in other words, the numbers will almost double in the next 35 years. If care in the community is to be honoured and if elderly Scots are to be given the opportunity to live independent lives, there will have to be a wider range of flexible housing options. That will require increased investment in the Scottish housing stock.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: No. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech, so he will have to sit down.
The same is true for those with learning difficulties and those who suffer problems with their mental health. If they are to avoid a lifetime in institutional care, there will have to be greater investment in integrating housing with social care in Scotland. The examples are endless. They include meeting the needs of the 78,000 homeless people in Scotland, according to the latest estimate by Shelter; meeting the needs of rural Scotland, which Conservative Members claim to represent; meeting the needs of young people—particularly very young people—coming out of care, a group whose plight was recently described by the journalist Jon Snow as a continuing national disgrace; and meeting the needs of those trapped on waiting lists and those in damp-ridden houses.
The knee-jerk response to all those demands for investment would be that the country cannot afford it and that the public purse is already stretched to the limit trying to satisfy the demands for social welfare spending and that housing will simply have to take its turn. That response ignores completely the strong economic case for investing in housing which receives widespread support across Scotland. Time prevents me from discussing every aspect, but I shall give a few examples of the arguments that support it.
House building and repair remain a labour-intensive industry that creates more jobs for a given level of investment than almost any other sector of the economy. Therefore, by investing in housing, we can quickly get more people back to work so that fewer people will claim benefit and be a drain on the public purse.
As has already been said, poor housing has a direct impact on people's health and therefore contributes to increased spending on the health service, as is evidenced by the incidence of bronchitis and asthma. Increased investment in housing would decrease the demand for spending on the national health service. The lack of good-quality, affordable rented accommodation reduces labour mobility and undermines our national economic

performance. A growing number of people in Scotland are beginning to ask not whether we can afford to invest in housing, but whether we can afford not to do so.
Let me concentrate on one particular issue of housing investment under the present Government—housing benefit. Yesterday, I attended the national poverty hearings at Church house in London. It was a moving occasion in which real experts in poverty—the poor themselves—told the rest of us what it was like to be poor. They said that the hardest part was the negativity and hostility directed towards them by the rest of society—for example, being described or thought of as a scrounger, a waster, someone who did not want to work or was congenitally lazy. One of them summed it up beautifully when he said that there is no such thing as the poverty gene: people are poor not because of any lack in themselves, but because they are victims of a system which discriminates against them and makes them poor. The housing benefit system that has been promoted by the Conservative party is evidence of that.
Housing benefit in Scotland is enormously expensive. It currently costs the taxpayer around £900 million every year. That is £320 million more than the additional investment called for by Shelter, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and other bodies. They call for an additional investment in the housing stock of £2.9 billion in the next five years. The Minister would cry, "Where will the money come from?" but over the same five years he plans to invest £4.5 billion in the housing benefit system. We are entitled to ask him where he plans to find that money.
What are taxpayers being asked to pay for by that huge investment? They are being asked to subsidise unrealistic rent levels to keep rent at a level that tenants cannot afford to pay. They are being asked to pay to make it impossible for people on full housing benefit to get off benefit and back to work. They are being asked to pay to make people entirely dependent and trap them in poverty. Those are the consequences of the Government's housing policies.
There is an overwhelming need to rethink the present strategy whereby ever-increasing rents in Scotland are backed up by ever-increasing levels of housing benefit. Shelter has asked that urgent consideration be given to the relationship between rents and the benefit system. It is not alone in that call. Scottish Homes—the Government's own national housing agency—is arguing the economic case for controlling housing costs in Scotland. It points out that, for those not in work, the high cost of housing, coupled with the operation of the benefit system, reduces work incentives, thereby reducing overall labour supply and damaging the economic interests of the Scottish people. That leads us to ask: why does the Minister not listen to the advice of his national housing agency and break the ever-spiralling levels of housing benefit, rising rents and benefit dependency in Scotland?
Housing must become the priority of the elected representatives of the Scottish people and the focus of a genuine national debate about the best way to tackle Scotland's housing crisis. Housing must be viewed not in isolation but as part of the wider social and economic context. At the end of the day, housing impacts on the country's economic performance. It impacts on people's health and makes them less able to contribute to the economy. Housing also impacts on educational opportunities. It is critical that housing should be viewed once again as part of the wider economy and as an


investment rather than a drag on public spending. If that is to occur, there must be a serious national debate about housing in Scotland. That will never happen in this place: it will happen only in a Scottish Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing it. Many points have been raised this morning and obviously I will not be able to refer to them in the short time available to me. However, I shall endeavour to address as many as I can, and I shall try to write to hon. Members regarding the issues that I do not cover.
I turn first to resources, as that subject has dominated the debate this morning. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan seemed to suggest that £4 billion in local authority housing debt could be spirited away if it were moved to different areas within the public sector. In addition, he suggested that, in his independent Scotland, £945 million would be available for new investment. He seems to forget that his great, independent Scotland would face a massive budget deficit. He did not say where the money would come from.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade produced figures compiled by Government economists showing that the deficit would be £6.7 billion. Those findings were backed up by the independent Fraser of Allander Institute. The much-respected House of Commons Library said in 1993–94 that the deficit would be more than £7 billion. Scotland on Sunday—which is certainly no friend to the Government—predicted that the budget deficit would be £4.5 billion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is playing politics of the very worst kind: promising much and raising expectations, knowing all the while that he can never deliver.

Mr. Salmond: There are mistakes in that calculation. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the equivalent figure for the whole of the United Kingdom is £53 billion under his Government. That is why we have seen 22 tax increases—which have occurred in Scotland also—in an attempt to redress the balance. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that all the spending commitments about which I have talked today and their revenue consequences are laid down in the budget plans produced by the SNP? If he wants to attack those figures, the documents are available. If he has not read them or does not understand them, he should admit that to the House.

Mr. Robertson: I was being kind to the hon. Gentleman by not adding in his party's spending plans, which would take the budget deficit to £10 billion. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe that Government economists, the Fraser of Allander Institute, Scotland on Sunday and the House of Commons Library are wrong and that he is right. In so doing, he displays an arrogance on which the Scottish people will judge him.
Throughout his 11-minute speech, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred continually to lack of resources and the need for more money. However, he did not say how much the Labour party would spend

over and above what we are spending. I am prepared to give him a minute of my speaking time if he will come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House exactly how much a Labour Government would spend over and above the plans that I have announced.

Mr. McAllion: The Government are currently spending £900 million subsidising failure and trapping people in poverty. If the hon. Gentleman were to listen to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and its very wise advice on how to make rents affordable for Scottish people. he would reduce the housing benefit budget—thereby releasing resources for investment in housing—and get people out of poverty, off benefit, back to work and paying taxes. In that way, he would create a virtuous circle instead of the circle of failure that his broken and useless policies have imposed on the Scottish people.

Mr. Robertson: We have fantasy figures from the SNP and no figures from the Labour party. I contrast that approach with the Government's actions. We plan to make almost £2 billion available for housing in Scotland in the next three years. Spending by local authorities could amount to about £1 billion. In 1996–97, the gross capital provision for investment by local authorities and Scottish Homes will amount to nearly £680 million. That means that, since 1979, we have invested £6 billion in council housing and £2 billion in private sector housing by local authorities.
This year, we have maintained net borrowing provision at planned levels, and gross investment by local authorities in council housing is expected to amount to almost £350 million in 1996–97. Over the same period, the number of council houses has fallen by about 25 per cent.—which means that the debt to which the hon. Gentleman referred has increased by 60 per cent. That is unacceptable, and there is a pressing need to tackle council housing debt.
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), I am aware that most of the new authorities have made representations about the estimates that we are about to announce. I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday when we met to discuss the matter that, before making a final decision, I shall take on board all the representations from local authorities. If hon. Members wish to discuss the matter on behalf of, or in conjunction with, local authorities before a final decision is taken early next week, I shall be delighted to meet them.
Local authorities owe it to themselves and to their tenants to maximise receipts by every means at their disposal. I shall now take a few minutes of the time of the House to refer to the potential for generating receipts from the sale of housing stock to other landlords.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Robertson: With respect, I have only four minutes left in which to reply to the debate.
In the past, some hon. Members have questioned whether the £22 million included in the provisional estimates for stock transfers next year is achievable. That figure represents the sale of about 1 per cent. of the total local authority housing stock in Scotland—that must be achievable. I believe that orders of that magnitude can be


achieved, for example, through the sale of empty properties or through the transfer of a small number of houses to existing locally based housing associations.
I acknowledge that it may be difficult to achieve substantial large-scale stock transfers next year, but authorities should start to plan now for such transfers in 1997–98. As I have said on several occasions, I believe firmly that authorities should generate more resources for housing investment through selling stock to other landlords. I expect local authorities to take the steps necessary to maximise receipts.
The threat to increased investment in Scotland's housing comes not from Her Majesty's Government but from the ideology expressed by Opposition Members who believe that only councils should build houses and be landlords. That is a mentality from the past which does nothing to address the needs and the demands of social housing in Scotland as we approach the millennium.
I turn now to some points raised specifically in the debate. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asked about the sale of the Scottish Homes loans portfolio. We shall shortly appoint advisers to examine the matter and we shall look closely at his idea for separate sales per country.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) inquired about anti-social tenants. I am on record as saying that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, under the chairmanship of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), is examining the matter. I shall wait until it has reported to the Government and to the House before deciding on a course of action—it would be madness to try to duplicate that Select Committee's work. However, some of the powers that the hon. Gentleman suggested have not been requested by Labour-controlled councils. There is an immense area to explore, but I am willing to wait until the Select Committee has reported before deciding what, if any, legislation should be brought before the House.
Homelessness and rooflessness have been mentioned. Homelessness continues to be a national priority for local authorities and for Scottish Homes, which hopes to make about 2,400 homes available for homeless people this year. Helping rough sleepers remains a priority in the homelessness programme and I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that, before we bring forward any plans on rooflessness initiatives, we need to be properly informed, and that is why my predecessor commissioned a research report into what was happening. I expect to have the results of that this summer. I can tell the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) that I will consider carefully all the indications of that research, but I do not want to make policy without being properly informed, and that is what the research project will do.
Earlier this year, we consulted on the code of guidance on homelessness and asked for comments by 30 September from a wide range of bodies, including those representing the views of homeless people.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister concede that such an initiative would require—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Engineering

11 am

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome this opportunity to raise in the House once again the all-important subject of engineering. I can vouch for the operation of the ballot in obtaining this slot for an Adjournment debate, having waited for months for my lucky day to arrive. No element of choice is involved.
In these days of political correctness, I must declare my interest in this subject. First, I am a founder member of the all-party engineering development group and, for the past four years, I have had the honour to be its chairman. Secondly, I am a parliamentary adviser to Seeboard, my local electricity company—now also a gas supplier—and to Chanel, an industry leader in fashion and fragrance. Both companies draw on engineering talent for their success and I accentuate that point because it shows the diversity of engineering operations in industry. Thirdly, I must declare my position as a business adviser to Lexion, which is a growing management consultancy deeply involved in improving the performance of many varied engineering companies in Britain and elsewhere.
I am not alone in my interest in this debate this morning, as you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the number of colleagues who are here. I wish to record apologies from some of my hon. Friends who would have liked to have been here and from whom the House would have been interested to hear, but who have been kept away, mostly by service on Select Committees. I mention especially my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce).
To put the debate in its proper context, I remind the House that engineering is Britain's biggest profession by a long chalk, and that it is the greatest contributor to Britain's gross national product. Engineering is one of our key national capabilities, as was so aptly pointed out by Dr. Alan Rudge at the launch of the new Engineering Council last month. He said:
Engineering encompasses issues which impact upon every aspect of social and business life. Engineering is about innovation, wealth creation, quality of life and even national survival … it is also concerned with the effective management of Time, Money, Technology and People. In all of these aspects the Engineering Profession can make a contribution which deserves to be heard.
I am glad to have this opportunity to add a parliamentary voice to that statement this morning.
I shall put in a word here about the new Engineering Council, to place it on record. It was launched in February with two specific aims—to unify the engineering profession and to establish a new, forward-looking relationship and partnership between the council and the 39 engineering institutions. At its launch, the council was described by the Deputy Prime Minister as a vital first step towards a stronger voice for engineering in Britain. That it is already happening.
It is crucial that the engineering profession is properly understood and respected, that the contribution of engineers is heard and that young people are attracted to a career based on engineering. I pay tribute to Sir John Fairclough, who launched and worked so hard to achieve


the initiative to unify the profession. I wish Dr. Alan Rudge very well as the first chairman of the new Engineering Council senate.
It is a happy coincidence, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy will know, that the debate coincides with SET 96, the third national festival of science, engineering and technology, which is taking place under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry all this week. The subtitle of SET 96 is "The Essence of Trade and Industry", which correctly positions our debate today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology on that initiative and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy will transmit those congratulations to him.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has shown a considerable grasp of the fast-changing issues and he has dispelled many of the fears of the prophets of doom about the move of the department to the DTI last summer. He has led the efforts to improve the integration of competition, innovation, technology, science and engineering, and continually drawn attention to the importance of training in primary science and mathematics as the cornerstone for competitiveness in SET-based industries.
SET 96 follows up the DTI's Action for Engineering campaign of last autumn and is a further step forward in the Government's activities to promote engineering in this country and abroad. It is due to be followed by the Year of Engineering Success—YES—which will run all through 1997 and is due to be launched in Parliament at the end of this year. It is a co-operative initiative by the engineering profession, employers, industry, business and the Government. It will mark and remind people of the vital role of engineering in our country's economic success in an increasingly competitive world, and of the contribution that engineering makes to our lives at home, at work, in transportation, in health care, in communications, in leisure and, not least, in our future environment.
It is of long-term importance that better public awareness and appreciation must increase the interest of more able children in engineering and technical courses at school and in the pursuit of engineering studies in further education. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
It is no mistake that the name of the YES promotion spells "yes". The intention is that, by the end of 1997, when opinion-formers are asked if they think engineering is important to the economy, they will respond yes; when school children are asked if they are interested in a career in engineering, they will say yes; and when parents are asked if they would be pleased for a child to become an engineer or technician, they will say yes. The promotion must establish engineering as a preferred profession for young people and an exciting route for any ingenious and resourceful student with an eye to the future.
Much has already happened in previous years to advance our argument. The Royal Society of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce continues to make a valuable input to developing new ideas and approaches. The society was the patron of Industry Year, ran a series of seminars on manufacturing and wealth creation in the economy, conducted an erudite and deep study of the workplace of tomorrow, and continues to contribute a series of lectures and other activities. The BBC, which is so often criticised in the House—and with some

justification—featured last winter a special television session celebrating engineers and their achievements, which was an immense success. The Engineering Training Authority continues to focus on the skills and training needs of engineering manufacturing industry. Year after year, the Engineering Employers Federation makes an important contribution to knowledge about engineering and the environment in which it operates.
Engineering institutions such as the Institution of Electrical Engineers are establishing engineering centres to provide local access to best practice, information and advice, and schemes such as the continuing performance project update and develop technical and non-technical skills. In addition to the many institutional programmes, the Engineering Council organises initiatives aimed at promoting engineering through, for example, Young Engineers for Britain—an annual competition that attracts entries from more than 1,200 budding inventors between the ages of 11 and 19. Women into Science and Engineering aims at attracting more women to engineering. The proportion of women engineering undergraduates has more than doubled during the period of that campaign, but remains at 15 per cent. The Environment Award encourages engineers to take account of environmental issues and to find solutions to environmental problems. Neighbourhood engineer schemes link professional engineers and technicians with local secondary schools. They support teachers and give pupils valuable insights into engineering as a career. The technology enhancement programme funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation aims at improving technology, science and mathematics teaching. There is also the DTI-inspired action for engineering programme, but the Government must continue to give even stronger support in informing British people of the vital role that engineering plays in our national life and well being.
The Royal Academy of Engineering continues its good work of encouraging and maintaining excellence under the presidency of Sir William Barlow. Among all its activities, perhaps the most prestigious is the award of the qualification FEng—fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering—to those distinguished engineers who meet the demanding professional requirements of that title, who number fewer than 1,000. It is high time that that qualification was considered on a par with a fellowship of the Royal Society, for it is just as meritorious and important.
The academy provides on a cost price basis the parliamentary group's administrative back-up; without that help the group would not be as effective as it is. The group's membership comprises 98 Members of Parliament, 36 peers, 23 individuals and 136 corporations and universities. Our secretary, Jennifer Lindley, makes it all tick, and we are all very grateful to her.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: As I was in Committee, I missed a couple of minutes of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. While he is thanking various parties for their contributions, I am sure that he will mention the role of universities in innovation in engineering. Many fascinating and exciting best practices are to be found at universities such as Warwick, Huddersfield and the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, but there is concern among


the heads of innovating institutions about the tremendous pressure on their departments following the most recent round of budget cuts.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman entirely correctly anticipates comments that I shall make later.
All the endeavours that I described have the one aim of building a better future for British engineering as a wealth creator. Concern about the future of engineering equates with concern about the future of the United Kingdom. Wealth creation starts with engineers. Innovative British engineering solutions are world beaters. One good example is an ultrasonic gas meter just the size of a brick, which won the 1995 Royal Academy of Engineering MacRobert award for its revolutionary design, and orders for it are coming in from all over the world. We must encourage and develop more success stories.
Improving the quality of life is as important as wealth creation. Solutions to pollution and environmental degradation continue to come from scientists and engineers. Leanburn engines, battery-powered cars and fuel cells will help to control vehicle emissions, and all our lives will benefit. The technology foresight exercise identified key areas of research that are critical to wealth creation. The Government must continue to support and expand support through research councils, the UK engineering base and the key technologies that technology foresight identified. Let us be clear that technology foresight will fail if industry does nothing. The Royal Academy of Engineering is actively encouraging industry to take a long-term view of markets and technological opportunities, and to spend more on research and development to take advantage of them.
Returning to the crucial requirements for success, we must improve the teaching of basic mathematics in schools. Worrying statistics from a recent Exeter university study of mathematics abilities in Great Britain and other countries were presented at a conference in Birmingham yesterday. Young people in Germany, Poland or Singapore—to pick just three examples—are far ahead of their British counterparts at the age of 13, and they are even further ahead at 14. It seems that teachers in Britain are unwilling to correct mistakes or to demand precise and exact work; that children are allowed to resort to calculators at too early an age, before they have achieved a proper understanding of numbers; that there is too little streaming to speed comprehension and improvement, especially of high achievers and low achievers; and that, too often, the qualifications of primary school teachers of mathematics are too low.
National wealth creation depends on the training of young people to levels at least as high as those in other industrialised countries, and it must start with a good foundation in basic mathematics. Teaching standards need improvement, whatever other changes may be made to our school systems. To achieve that—here I touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—we must continue to put new technology into our schools and adapt teaching and learning procedures to give all students the necessary knowledge and skills that they and our country need. That leads me to engineering education in universities.
There is a desperate need for more of our most able young people to go into engineering, which is a fascinating, broad, challenging and rewarding area of study and work. There is a shortage of top-quality chartered engineers and incorporated engineers, in part because too many students, even those who may be more naturally practical, are tempted into more theoretical areas of study. The universities have a role to play in that. Engineering should be used more widely as a general education leading to a variety of careers.
In that context, I must mention engineering at the University of Sussex, in my constituency. Since the university's initiation in 1965, engineering has functioned there as a closely integrated school of studies. By avoiding a conventional departmental approach to engineering, which can create barriers between civil, mechanical and electrical engineering, the Sussex school has been able to establish a range of highly successful interdisciplinary degree programmes and well-funded industrially relevant research activities, the quality of which is recognised both nationally and internationally.
Because of its unified nature and relatively small size, the school can respond more rapidly to developments in the engineering profession—most of which occur at the interface between traditional disciplines—than most of its competitors. In that way, engineering, in all its parts, is made more interesting and relevant. Even in Sussex there is room for more women applicants to take advantage of that.
Young men and young women should know that graduates from engineering and science-based courses are finding it easier to get satisfactory jobs than are many other graduates. What is more, they are attractive to a range of employers and are involved at the cutting edge of industry and business. It is also quite clear that graduates are now entering a well-paid profession. The Engineering Council's recent survey of salaries shows that the median annual salary for a chartered engineer is in the region of £35,000. It is also clear from recent studies that engineering is the best route to promotion to the very top of UK business.
There are some concerns, however, and I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. The recent cuts in capital funding for universities announced in last November's Budget will have a particularly bad effect on departments of engineering and science, where investment in technological and research facilities needs to be increased. Retraining and re-education are of growing importance. It has been estimated by the Institution of Electrical Engineers that the half life of a technical degree is now only four years. Professional engineers need to keep their skills and knowledge up to date. Universities have increasingly to cater to that need.
There is a need for better research and for better funding of it. If Britain is to increase its productivity and competitiveness in Europe and the world, policies that attract innovative graduates into research are essential. It is relevant that the Science and Technology Committee in another place made the point that the absence of career opportunities for researchers is one factor in the lack of attractiveness of science to school children.
As I reach my conclusion, I must make a few wider comments on aspects of wealth creation that affect engineers, engineering companies and everybody else. We have a hard-won low level of inflation. Whatever else we do, we must maintain it; it influences all the costs of


manufacture. A properly maintained value for sterling is important to raw material costs and the costs of outsourcing, and a competitive exchange rate is an important base for export sales. The national business overhead is being better contained in Britain than in many other countries, and more successfully than in previous years—but more effort is always needed to keep down business rates, the cost of national insurance, the hidden costs of less than good transport systems, the costs of meeting legislative requirements and much more. All are real costs for business and can be to the real detriment of engineering success.
We must see what more can be done to encourage and to help small firms. More than 95 per cent. of engineering firms have fewer than 200 employees, and more than three quarters have fewer than 20 employees. Many of the engineering industry's suppliers and customers are also small companies. I realise that this is close to the Minister's heart, as he was responsible for the Department of Trade and Industry's small firms in Britain initiative last year. I urge him to seek out better methods of equity finance for small firms; more help for small firms in managing their finances and their businesses; opportunities to reduce regulation on their operations, as outlined by the Prime Minister only last week; and better and more continuous Government strategy for house building, construction, infrastructure inputs and export development, in which all small firms, particularly small engineering firms, have a vital interest.
Every engineer knows how important it is to know how the various parts of any system interrelate and to have a vision of the purpose of all endeavour. That is a good approach for government as well.
The quality of our education output—to put it in manufacturing terms—is not good enough, particularly considering the considerable sums that are spent on it. The fact that many technology and science courses are undersubscribed demonstrates either that pupils are not made aware of the interesting careers available in engineering and similar professions, and the importance to the future prosperity of our country, or that they consider the discipline of study in those subjects too hard compared with the softer options of the humanities, business studies or media studies, which are so popular. That problem arises particularly if they have not had the necessary basic training in mathematics and sciences early in their school career.
Perhaps the problem arises from a lack of reliable careers advice in schools or from the professions, although the Engineering Council has a number of programmes that aim to encourage schools and their pupils to consider this career option. A constituent of mine wrote recently:
I have found engineering to be most rewarding in terms of job satisfaction, contact with people, overseas travel and living abroad and seeing an end product benefiting the community".
We can all draw inspiration from that.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on the precision of his speech, which is very apt in a debate on engineering, but most of all on raising this subject. As he said, this is Science, Engineering and Technology Week. Yet this one-and-a-half-hour debate on a Wednesday morning is

the only contribution that the House is making to what should be a focus event throughout the nation. For once, the media are doing something about it—usually, they do not—but, alas, we are not, except for the hon. Gentleman. I do not acquit my own party in any way. We had a Supply day on Monday, and there are many things that we could debate about science and engineering, but we chose not to. We are as much to blame as the Government.

Mr. Sheerman: I have just come from the industry forum of the Labour party, in the City of London. Hundreds of people were there for the launch, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, of an event tied in with this week, so the Labour party, in many respects, has been fully and actively involved in this week.

Mr. Oakes: I am delighted to hear it. I was not talking about what the Labour party is doing in the country as a whole; I was talking about what we are doing in the House. It is only because the hon. Member for Lewes raised the subject of science, engineering and technology that we are talking about it today.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of our past engineering achievements. They are indeed outstanding. In the last century, our nation led the world in railway and marine engineering; in this century, we have led the world in aeronautical and nuclear engineering, telecommunications and television. All those developments emanated from this country. But do we still lead the world in engineering? Alas, I think not. We should analyse what went wrong and, by means of national policy, endeavour to put some of it right.
Only a couple of years ago, the channel tunnel was opened, linking this country with continental Europe. One hundred years ago, such an enormous engineering achievement would not have been celebrated just in Kent; it would have been celebrated in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh and the north of Scotland. There would have been festivities—all manner of events in recognition of that tremendous achievement. In fact, very little credit was given to the engineers who built the tunnel in the face of enormous difficulties. There was carping criticism about the cost and the time that the work took, but we did not hear anything about what had been achieved. The hon. Member for Lewes was right to raise this subject, because the nation is no longer achieving such things.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, engineering has many spheres, and we could lead the world again in the next century—which is now approaching. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the environment. If we are to maintain our present standard of living, and keep our atmosphere and water clear and clean, chemical engineering is the only answer. Some organisations may disagree; presumably, they would like us to go back to living in caves. That is one solution, but it is not what the British people want.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned both chemical and electrical engineering. Given the present level of pollution, we must invent an electric car that is economical and non-polluting, and the only people who can do that are electrical and mechanical engineers. Work is already under way, but are the resources sufficient?
Debates about water are taking place in various parts of the country, including your part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the nation really afford to let its fresh, clean rain water flow into the ocean without conserving it? We need barrages. Barrages need not be the enemies of ecology; engineers can be eco-conscious and enhance the ecology of an area, provided that such considerations are built into their plans. Civil engineering has enormous potential not just to conserve this country's resources, but to provide a better environment and give a lead to the rest of the world.
Will we be at the forefront in the next century, as the hon. Gentleman and I hope? I do not know. I am not happy with the way in which the Government have dealt with the whole question of science, engineering and technology. Three years ago, a White Paper was produced, and was widely welcomed in the House. I spoke in the debate on that White Paper, as did many of my hon. Friends and members of the Liberal party. We all praised the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the Minister responsible for such matters. The White Paper was imaginative. What has happened to it? An imaginative Department was created, making science, technology and engineering a priority, and—vitally—a Cabinet Minister was there to fight its corner in the Cabinet. When the present Chief Secretary left that Department, however, the steam seemed to go out of it. Science, technology and engineering became just another aspect of the Department of National Heritage, along with the citizens charter and the lottery. That is no way in which to treat the subject.
The present position is even worse. The Department of Trade and Industry now deals with science, technology and engineering. Short-termism is inevitable in that Department, because there is not enough interest in blue-sky projects. The Department will want to link science and technology, and confine itself to specific, narrow projects. That is where the research money will go. Moreover, no Cabinet Minister is involved other than one with a conflict of interests—the President of the Board of Trade. His job is to consider the needs of industry, and not necessarily to put science or engineering first. We need to think again about which Department should deal with science.
When I was Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, I was unhappy with the way in which that Department treated science. I fought hard for it, but it was treated as an afterthought, and I shed no tears when it was moved elsewhere. The present Department for Education and Employment might be a better home for it—certainly better than the Department of Trade and Industry.
There is no proper investment in engineering, in terms of either resources from industry or research and development funding. The White Paper discussed where the expert teams from the defence industry would go. In fact, they have dispersed and disappeared, rather than being harnessed to the vital tasks involved in civil engineering.
Most hon. Members will have received a copy of a brilliant paper entitled "Policies for the Next Government", issued by the Save British Science Society. Reading it over the weekend, I encountered a chilling phrase. Professor Alec Broers, head of engineering at Cambridge university and vice-chancellor elect, says:

The market for the best academics is now international, with competition both from the USA and, increasingly, from technical universities in the Far East. In a couple of recent instances Cambridge has been unable to attract a candidate to a Professorial chair because it has failed to match the salary and research facilities of rival universities".
The man who said that is a fellow of the Royal Society. He has a distinguished record with IBM in America, and was probably foremost in the field before he went to Cambridge. We are not talking about some obscure new "Johnny come lately" university; we are talking about Cambridge, which was once known throughout the world for its science and engineering expertise, but which now cannot attract professors. That is the result of more short-termism—short-term contracts for lecturers, instead of proper contracts. That is where we have ended up, with all research harnessed to narrow instead of blue-sky projects. One of the foremost universities in the world cannot attract a professor.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the median salary in engineering is about £35,000 a year. Engineers receive only £1,000 a year more than us—that is how poor the salary is. What is the median salary of accountants, barristers and brokers in the City? It is considerably more than £35,000 a year, but the engineer is doing more good in relation to this country and to the future of humanity than the lot of them put together.
I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's remarks on education. Fortunately, Sir Ron Dearing is considering this country's higher education. He should take account of this debate and of the needs of the engineering profession.
The Save British Science Society document makes the excellent point that specialisation, involving basically the study of three arts subjects or three science subjects, is too narrow. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those subjects are not mixed—either science or the arts is studied. It was so when I was at school and it has become far worse. The document advocates the study of five subjects, although possibly not at the present high level.

Mr. Sheerman: The baccalaureate.

Mr. Oakes: Yes, the baccalaureate idea.
If a person is entering the science discipline, three of the subjects that he studies should obviously be science subjects, but two should be arts subjects—for instance, history, a language or English. Similarly, a person intending to pursue a course in the arts should take two science subjects because, to be an educated man in the present world, he must have some knowledge of science.
One of the difficulties in the House is that far too few engineers and scientists come here. Considering the candidates, from all political parties, for the next general election, I believe that that will become worse. Many of the people coming in have no knowledge of other subjects. They have arts degrees and have no knowledge of industry or of basic science. That is bad for the country, because we are too arts dominated. It is bad, too, for scientists not to study an arts subject, because they end up being treated just as back-room boffins. They need a wider base than just science, just as the arts graduate must have a knowledge of science.
I passionately agree with the hon. Gentleman's views on mathematics. It is too easy for a youngster at an early age to take the easy option and to opt out of mathematics.
That happens all the time. Such youngsters have no mathematical knowledge. It is not possible to have an innumerate engineer—it is a contradiction in terms. I am talking not just about the people at the top—the professors of engineering—but about site engineers and senior foremen in engineering. They cannot be innumerate and be an engineer. It is a waste of resources, therefore, to allow youngsters at an early age to opt out of mathematics and thereby debar themselves from the engineering profession, which, at a later stage, they might wish to join and make a significant contribution to. They have banned themselves from a whole technology by opting out of mathematics at too early an age.
In the old days, for example, we had to do Latin to enter certain universities. There is much sense in that. Mathematics should take an equal position. Engineers must do mathematics. They may achieve only a low level of mathematics, but at least they will be numerate and have knowledge of mathematics, no matter what university course they take.
The hon. Gentleman hinted at this when talking about the way in which engineers are regarded. In this country, we give too low a profile to engineers—a far lower profile than they are given in France, America or Germany in particular. An engineer can be anything from a distinguished professor to a chap mending a car in a garage—all are given the generic term. We do not give sufficient honours in our honours list to scientists and engineers. They should be at the head of that list because of their contribution to knowledge and to the economy of this country.

Mr. Rathbone: It is kind of the right hon. Gentleman to let me interrupt. A number of engineers are honoured in the honours list, but, unfortunately, when they are listed, they are never identified as "FEng", in the way that someone is identified as "FRS". I hope that that might be changed.

Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right.
Having been a Minister with responsibility for education, I know that, only too often, we get crazes in education. During those crazes, we are apt to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Over the past 20 years, there has been a craze against apprenticeships and for people to remain in full-time education until they graduate. With that, we threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Some of our finest engineers, not only those on the ground, but those becoming distinguished heads of engineering, worked in a factory and went to night school to do their degree. They maintained themselves doing a useful job for the community, with money in their pockets while they were working. Before they became a BEng or a BSc, they had work experience and learned that they needed to know, not just about engineering, but about human resources and how to persuade fellow workers to do something in the way in which they wanted them to do it. We must reconsider that route. We threw away the old apprenticeship route, and we should bring it back, probably on a wider basis.
I have spoken for long enough. I address my remarks as much to Labour Front-Bench Members as to the Government, because we are moving closer and closer towards a general election. This subject is not for party

political battle, as it involves this country's survival. I hope that, if we are in government, which I hope we shall be—although I shall not be here—we shall have a dramatic policy for science and engineering.
I do not necessarily want to bring back the old Ministry of Technology. Although that was a much-maligned idea, it had brilliant potential. It seized the country's imagination, but it was destroyed by the jealousy of other Departments and, being a new Department, it made many mistakes. We could learn by those mistakes, but one thing is certain: we must have in the Cabinet a Minister who is directly responsible for science, engineering and technology. In that way, we could be great again.
The future of engineering is bright. We must remember that we are still the great nation of George Stevenson, of Brunel and of some of the greatest names in engineering that the world has known. We can be at the forefront of world engineering again if it is properly handled.

Mr. David Ashby: How much I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I only hope that he is successful in persuading those on the Government Front Bench of the merits of what he has had to say to the House today. So often in some of the best debates, such as this, the press is noticeably absent, which may be one reason why we can be so frank and honest in what we have to say.
We say that this is not and should not be a political issue. But I do not see why we should not have innumerate engineers because, after all, there are many illiterate teachers. There lies the rub. I often ask myself why we do not have cross-party support on our efforts to raise standards in education. We need cross-party support, but virtually everything that the Government have done has been criticised. Real efforts have been made to try to debunk them, to make them look ridiculous and to persuade people not to improve our standards. Britain will never improve until we improve our standards.
I am looking at the time and I realise that there are others who want to speak. They will be able to have a real go at me for bringing politics into this. We have had a high-flown and interesting debate, but I want to talk about the ordinary people, the small jobbing engineers, the majority of engineers up and down the country employing fewer than 100 people.
I must declare an interest. I am chairman of such a company. I want to give the House some of the benefits—if they are benefits—of my experience in that area in the hope that somehow we can obtain some vital improvements in those small companies. We hear about all the big companies, but it is the small jobbing engineers who support them, making small parts so that the big companies can get on with what they are trying to do.
I am the chairman of a family company. I have a small, probably non-declarable—I have never tried to work it out—equity interest in the company. But in all fairness to the House, I should say that close members of my family have larger interests, indeed controlling interests.
Such companies produce goods and services for so many companies and are involved in many manufacturing processes. It was hard for companies such as mine during the recession. We had nil, even negative, growth, and it


was a matter of battening down the hatches as far as we could. Even now, such companies have many difficulties. Profits are extremely tight. We are talking about extremely small margins. Many are producing not long runs, but small runs of high-quality products.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said, being in engineering is exciting and innovative. It requires a high degree of skill and an even higher degree of perfection. The achievement that is possible in engineering can lead to high self-esteem.
I echo what has been said. How I wish that in our society we praised and lauded the ability of engineers, as happens on the continent. I can think of many times when I have been on the beach in Italy where being a dottore, an avvocato or even an onorevole, an Italian Member of Parliament, is nothing. What Italians want to hear is someone calling himself ingigniere. If we could only give such esteem to engineers, we would have people queuing up to become engineers and to achieve as engineers, as happens in other countries.
As has been said—I look at the time again and I do not want to go on repeating it—training is important to companies such as mine. The problem is not only the training of people, but the keeping of young qualified people. We train people and give them all the opportunities, only to lose them to the larger companies that can afford higher wages. Companies such as mine with small profits cannot afford to pay some of the wages that are paid by the larger companies, even though we recognise that we must provide the training because we need the skills. We want to be able to make larger profits so that we can pass them on to our work force, so keeping them, and thus keep our engineering alive. It follows, therefore, that companies such as mine have real continuing problems. If we are to survive, those are the matters that we must address.
As my hon. Friend said, engineering is time, technology and people. If we are to make bigger profits, we must acquire ever better technology and we must be ahead all the time. Coming out of the recession, if we are to survive so much competition and such tight profit margins, it is essential that we keep ahead in research and development. That is vital. If we are to have any success, we must put our profits back into research and development in order to ensure that we are ahead. That is not sufficiently recognised by those in government, especially the Treasury, which could do so much to help small engineering companies—or any company—to keep ahead of the competition in Europe and in the world in research and development.
In this age, it is also essential that we keep up with the ever-changing and more efficient technology, and that means machines. Machines not only wear out, but they change and become more and more efficient. There are new technologies in machining and tooling that provide that efficiency.
We have a work force whom we need to pay more, we need money for research and development and we need new machinery, if we are to increase our competitiveness and pay for the people whom we so much require. For a small business such as mine, a new machine may represent a year's profits, yet it is essential that we buy it. In such a situation, what will happen to research and

development and to our ability to keep our work force in this age of competitive wages? There is nothing left for increased wages; nothing left to ensure that the life-blood is there for the continuity of the company.
Small companies prosper in the present climate, but they could prosper more. We must reduce overheads and costs. Reducing bureaucracy frees up management and reduces overheads. That is an essential point. We need less bureaucracy. Less time should be consumed in filling out forms and other unnecessary things, so that business is free to get going. To employ people on such unnecessary work cuts severely into the resources available for all the other things that are so necessary for small companies.
But most of all, small companies would be helped by an improvement in the taxation climate—by the ability to write off capital machinery costs more quickly. I cannot understand why the Government cannot target businesses such as mine, so that we could write off such costs more quickly. Why cannot we target real producing machinery, which will improve our competitiveness and the way in which we operate, giving us a real chance? Why cannot such capital be targeted, even for one year, at a time when such a boost is needed? It would make an enormous difference to companies such as mine, if they were targeted at the next Budget, for example. I know that my company needs new machinery urgently, but it cannot afford it.
Running a business is a balancing act. If such machinery were an approved tax target, it could be bought in the coming year and set the company up for two, three or four years. I am not talking about fat cats earning profits. I do not make such profits, have dividends or employ any fat cats. I employ people who are doing extremely well and I want to go on providing them with jobs. Such provision is vital to British industry and to the future of Britain.
My plea is that we should look at the tax climate for companies such as mine—most importantly tax write-offs on capital, which have been shown to be vital. I am not talking about extra cars. I do not want tax write-offs for cars for my employees. My salesmen can keep their three-year-old models going. I want help with vital capital machinery. That is the life-blood of the company in which I am involved and of thousands of other companies.

12 noon

Mr. David Chidgey: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, but frustrated that there is so little time available. I shall try to be brief. I am grateful for two reasons—first, because my constituency owes its very origins to engineering development and prosperity and, secondly, and perhaps more important, because I am a chartered engineer. Indeed, I understand that I am one of only five hon. Members who are fellows of the Institution of Civil Engineers. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said that civil engineering is the largest profession in the country, yet we are clearly sorely under-represented in the place where decisions are made that affect the advancement of my first profession.
In considering the future of engineering, we need to understand how we have developed in the past. It is important to remember that, until 200 years ago, all engineering was military engineering. As we began to think about clean water, transport and public health, a


distinction between civil and military engineering became apparent. Indeed, the very first articles of association of the ICE's charter say that the society was set up to direct the
great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man".
The remit of engineers is much broader than is often interpreted.
Civil engineers and others of their ilk are responsible for many of the essentials of modern life, including the muscles and sinews that hold society together such as bridges, roads and railways; the heart and lungs of our society where natural resources go in and waste comes out to provide clean water, and so on; safe, sustainable and effective transport to enable us to move around; energy to make it work such as gas, oil, hydro-electric, tidal and wind power, and most important, renewable sources of energy. Engineers are also deeply concerned with the environment, reducing pollution, containing coastal erosion, restoring contaminated soil and disposing of hazardous waste. They are trying to create sustainability in our economy and perform most important tasks and bear great responsibilities.
History shows that advancement in engineering and science is exponential. Only 50 years ago, the concept of intercontinental air travel was considered rather like taking an expedition into the unknown, with all the vagaries of a safari in darkest Africa. Rocket science was hit and miss. I remember reading a book when I was a boy entitled "Will Man Ever Reach the Moon?" Computers were virtually unknown, and certainly unimaginable to most people. Yet only 50 years on, we take flights to New York, Moscow and Sydney and are given the same assurances on such trips as our grandparents were when they booked a train journey from London to Birmingham. We plan and execute interplanetary voyages to the further reaches of the universe and they hardly warrant a newspaper headline. Computers are expanding at such a rate that something called Moore's law has been established, which tells us that microchips double in power and halve in price every 18 months. It is therefore clear that opportunities for the advancement of engineering and science are phenomenal.
It is against that background that we need to consider the future of engineering—especially in the United Kingdom—the provision of human resources, the strengthening of our economy through engineering and the importance of engineering to the well-being of our nation. It is appropriate that we are debating the future of engineering in National Engineering, Science and Technology Week. It is also important to note that, in September, the Year of Engineering Success will be launched, to which reference has been made, which will celebrate engineering and show our confidence in the future.
Science is about discovery driven by curiosity. Technology is about how to make things work, and engineering is about creativity driven by a desire to make a better world. Making that happen is a tremendous responsibility for the profession and the Government to bear.
The future of engineering depends on the future of engineers, technicians and crafts people. As a chartered engineer, I am very conscious of the failures of my profession. I understand that the Engineering Council is

striving to unite all sorts of engineers under one umbrella, which has been required for some time. We need to maintain high standards in education, training and experience if we want more high-quality engineers. We must allocate adequate resources to premier engineering faculties in Britain's leading universities and to industry. Planning is vital to the future of engineering. How many mechanical, electrical, civil and aero-engineers will we need?

Mr. Sheerman: I know that time is limited; I shall not be making a speech. Do not let us replicate the problem raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). All our universities have great strengths in engineering. They are diverse and we should not be referring to a premier league. Some of the new universities have streaked up the innovation and enterprise ladder.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that is certainly within my concept of the future of further education and engineering.
Britain's engineering schools are competing with schools in France and Germany to produce international engineers. We must get away from the idea of British engineers training and working only in this country. We must accept that more and more undergraduates are undertaking four-year master of engineering degrees to develop the skills that they need, and are spending a year at universities in other parts of Europe. I note your signal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude soon.
It is vital that we dedicate resources to the training and education of our engineers and technicians. I say that as a governor of my local further education college in Eastleigh. Unless we provide education and skills by encouraging young people to undertake further education to attain basic skills in mathematics, so that they are able to complete courses successfully and attain further skills to match those held anywhere else in the world, we will have great difficulty in continuing to promote and develop our economy. The future of engineering depends on our ability to attract the brightest young men and women into engineering. To do so we, as a nation, must be prepared to reward them properly.

Mr. John Battle: I, too, welcome the debate. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for getting engineering on to the agenda. The fact that not all the hon. Members who wished to speak have been called and that some have had their remarks curtailed proves that the debate could have lasted much longer—perhaps it should be allowed to do so at some other time. We are also indebted to the hon. Member for Lewes for his insistence that we debate this matter.
The debate is more than timely because it coincides with a report published today by the Engineering Employers Federation which presages gloomy prospects for the engineering industry. The Minister might think this is humorous, but the federation's survey, which covered 16,000 firms and monitored trends in late February and early March, spells out that, in business terms, engineering is in a worse state than it has been for years. Growth is slowing and there is a danger of it tilting backwards, and it is proving harder to gain entry to export markets in France and Germany.
The best that the survey suggests is that the engineering industry is still under incredible pressure and is not springing back from recession, as some other industries might be. Our manufacturing industries are still in a very difficult position, and engineering is absolutely fundamental to that manufacturing base.
This is Science, Engineering and Technology Week. Some people ask why it should be called SET Week, but it is important that we keep science, engineering and technology linked and never let them be prised apart. The vital role of engineering in our scientific and technological development is sometimes missed entirely.
Many hon. Members have mentioned speaking to young people. It is the young who should be encouraged to understand, embrace and take up engineering. Our society is plagued not only by a lack of understanding of mathematics—I am tempted to say that we are in a culture that is anti-science and anti-technology—but by a fundamental lack of understanding of many of the processes of engineering and technology.
I have with me a piece of exemplary engineering—a titanium hip joint. I remember taking it to a school and asking children to tell me what this wonderful object could be. They could tell me about the high technology involved in hip joints being put into their grandfathers and knew how, after the operation, their grandfathers could walk, at first with a stick, and later run and play football again. When I asked where a titanium hip joint was made, few of them could link the object to a forge. Few could understand the process of modern forging or how such objects were made.
Professor Alec Broers, vice chancellor-elect of Cambridge university and head of its department of engineering, called for the quality of engineering students to be increased and mentioned the need to encourage women to go into engineering. He recently said that too many leaders in all areas of national life were ignorant of technology, and that their ignorance
distorts judgement and slows the acceptance of advances essential to business, industry, government and services.
My own city of Leeds was built on manufacturing and, in this century, that has meant principally engineering. The clothing and textile industries were the largest employers until the end of the last century. The clothing industry was in decline from the 1870s, and engineering and printing have been the key manufacturing industries of the city in this century.
It is interesting to recall that, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, 17,500 jobs were lost in manufacturing while, at the same time, another 17,500 jobs were developed in the service industries—in the public service, such as in shops and offices, and in financial and retail services. Those of us who were concerned about our declining manufacturing base at the time were met by Lord Young of Graffham, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who, amazingly, dismissed manufacturing, remarking that Britain would thrive if only more people would eat out. I hope that that radical market view—that we need not worry about manufacturing but should look more to tourism, hairdressing and McDonald's for our economic future—is now being dismissed.
It was not until the publication in 1985 of a House of Lords Select Committee report on British manufacturing, however, that the Government began to acknowledge

once again the need for manufacturing—and the underpinning of manufacturing, as the technology foresight reports now acknowledge, by a strong engineering base.
As has been said, Britain has for centuries embodied discovery and application in science, engineering and technology with names such as Newton, Faraday, Watt, Brunel, Bell, Rutherford and Whittle. We are the birthplace of the television, the computer and the jet engine, and we are now at the forefront of the new biotechnology industries. What we take for granted in everyday life is developed from British engineering skills, but we must not allow our very maturity and the richness of our tradition to limit our vision, our capacity to learn or our readiness to respond to new challenges. We need to raise our sights out of the fag end of this century—if I can put it like that—well into the next century. Next year is to be the Year of Engineering Success and could be used as a platform to carry forward a positive vision of the future of engineering.
It is important to dwell for a moment on what the Government have done. They have reduced spending on research and development by a massive 12 per cent. in the past 10 years. In other words, when it comes to budget priorities, it seems that science, engineering and technology are being pushed down the ladder. According to the Government's own figures, spending on science is projected to fall a further 7 per cent. in real terms by 1997. The number of United Kingdom researchers has fallen whereas the number in our competitor countries has risen.
Even our national research laboratories are being fragmented and privatised. Recently, the National Engineering Laboratory was sold at what I understand is now termed a "negative value" of £1.95 million. In other words, people were paid to take it into the private sector, thus reducing our national capacity. It would seem that our research capacities are being internalised as the operations of private companies rather than being used as national back-up.
Figures for 1995 from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the percentage of gross domestic product spent on research and development in the United Kingdom is a mere 2.19 per cent.—less than the United States and Japan. The UK now employs 40,000 people fewer in R and D than in 1981.

Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the problem. There are many issues on which there is all-party agreement, but in terms of budgets and allocations and getting research and development priorities right, we must highlight party political as well as cross-party aspects.

Mr. Battle: I accept what my hon. Friend says. We must know the truth about the figures so that we can agree on them and do something about them. I know that my hon. Friend is most concerned about higher and further education. The fact that there have been cuts of up to £300 million to the Higher Education Funding Council, and that the funding for capital—for the laboratories at universities—has been cut, seems to suggest that the Government could be in danger of devouring the very seedcorn that we need for future development. I hope that all hon. Members agree about that so that we can make representations at Budget time for proper back-up for science, engineering and technology; otherwise, it will be seen that the Government are not enabling science, engineering and technology to flourish.
Engineering could be vital to the future of our country in terms of the new industries—especially the new environmental industries—developments in transpor-tation, energy, alternatives and renewables, telecommuni-cations and even cleaning up the environment. Yorkshire Water has been mentioned. The irony, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said, is that it was our great engineers who built incredible reservoirs with such vision and capacity in the last century. Why are we not applying our best technology to dare I say it—look again at the aquifer in Yorkshire and open up the bore holes so that we have local supplies of water again? There are technological options that have not been properly explored.
As the hon. Member for Lewes said, there are developments such as leanburn engines and battery-powered cars and buses that could create wealth, add to the quality of our lives and take us through into the next century. Positive proposals should be built on—even small ones. The Royal Academy of Engineering has pioneered the visiting professor scheme. We could build on the technology transfer models of Cambridge and Imperial college. In my city, the Leeds engineering initiative pulls together the training and enterprise council and private industry to push the profile of engineering to ensure that its 1,800 engineering firms network their activities, win markets and so perform better than the national average.
The models in Leeds could be used nationally. They are practical partnerships that the Labour party not only advocates but practises. There is no room for complacency, but for 15 years at least the Government's fundamental approach has been one of failed laissez-faire, leaving manufacturing and engineering to wither and die. Our approach would develop engineering enterprise through genuine partnership. We have always believed, and continue to believe, in the need for a manufacturing base to underpin our economy and a strong engineering framework to hold it up. The Government could do much more, although I suspect that they are waking up too late.

The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), not on getting this slot—that is like getting a few numbers on the lottery—but on his choice of subject. As has been said, we would need another couple of hours to scratch the surface of this important matter. My hon. Friend and I were members of the all-party engineering development group, which for several years stressed the crucial need for the United Kingdom to strengthen its engineering capacity. It gives an important insight into the requirements of engineering. My hon. Friend served as chairman, while I was a spear-carrier. He gave a masterly round-up, which I endorse.
I shall not discuss small firms even though I am the Minister responsible for them, because that would hijack the debate and its emphasis would be lost. All hon. Members stressed the importance of engineering. We agree on that, although the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) introduced a discordant note near the end with which I disagree. Time is not on my side to rebut fully everything that he said.
We have continually emphasised the importance of engineering in the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and

Technology", in the 1994 White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" and in the 1995 White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead". As night follows day, there will be a follow-up in 1996.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Page: I shall not give way because I have only eight minutes and I have much to add. While the hon. Gentleman would like to get his thruppenceworth in, I have a couple of pounds' worth to contribute which is much more important than anything that he could possibly say.
Let me put a handle on how important engineering is to the United Kingdom. In 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, the gross output of UK engineering was £114.6 billion—£38 billion of gross value added, which is 31 per cent. of gross value added by all manufacturing. There were about 1.156 million engineering jobs in November 1995 compared with 1.121 million a year earlier—an increase that is at odds with what the hon. Member for Leeds, West said. In November 1995, engineering employment accounted for 29.8 per cent. of manufacturing employment. In 1994, exports of £71.5 billion—more than half our manufacturing exports—came from engineering. In 1995, our trade deficit was £1.53 billion, a decrease of 64.9 per cent. on the year before. That improvement is again at odds what the hon. Member for Leeds, West said.
An activity is as good as the people involved in it, and engineering is no exception. Let us be blunt: despite our best efforts so far, the UK does not, as yet, compare as we would wish with overseas competitors. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes mentioned mathematics. I was trained as a mechanical engineer and I can only endorse its importance.
After the publication of the London Mathematical Society report "Tackling the Mathematics Problem", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, the Office for Standards in Education and the Teacher Training Agency for their advice on current maths issues. Initiatives and changes are coming from that. For example, maths has been identified by the TTA as a priority for in-service training and it has commissioned research into the effective teaching of numeracy. That evidence will be disseminated to teachers.
My hon. Friend talked about calculator-free examinations and classwork. I went round a primary school in my constituency only last week and found eight and nine-year-olds using calculators. It speeds things up, but I wonder whether it is the right way to get into children's minds how sums work before they start to use electronic supports. A calculator-free test for 11-year-olds will be introduced in 1996. The SCAA has been asked to consider a mental arithmetic test for 11 and 14-year-olds for next year.
In the United Kingdom, as hon. Members have said, only 12 per cent. of science and engineering graduates are in engineering. In Germany, the figure is 18 per cent.; in France, it is 21 per cent. Germany produces a third more engineering and technology PhDs per head of population than we do and five times as many of its people are qualified to MSc standard. The in-company training of engineers is an important feature in Japan and


other competitors. I agree that we need to thrust forward to try to improve the concept of and approach to engineering.
We are starting to tackle the problem in a sustained and dynamic fashion. For example, as has been mentioned, this is the third annual Science, Engineering and Technology Week. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who made some solid points. However, it is a matter not only of throwing money at a problem but of enthusing the hearts and minds of people in the industry so that they take the drive forward and do not sit around waiting for tablets of stone from politicians, some of whom have little industrial or practical experience in the sectors on which they pontificate.
This is the third annual Science, Engineering and Technology Week. Today has been earmarked as Women in Science, Engineering and Technology Day to raise awareness of that. Several thousand events will take place across the UK over the next few days. They range in location from Penzance to the Orkneys and in topics from astrophysics to zoology. It is one of the biggest annual celebrations of science, engineering and technology in the world. Down in the bowels of the Department of Trade and Industry, there is a most impressive exhibition which runs all week. I went yesterday and came away most impressed.
The technology foresight programme was alluded to obliquely by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby). He put his finger on the point and pressed hard the need to keep up with innovation and development. Time is not on my side to go through all the key points that are emerging from the foresight initiative, but they will be an important message to and support for engineering.
I was impressed by the fact that the hon. Member for Leeds, West brought his hip replacement. He is planning for the future. I must chide him slightly on his selective quotations from the Engineering Employers Federation report, because I can selectively quote back by pointing out that
Forty-one per cent. of the firms say that output is rising whilst only 28 per cent. reported a decrease … Larger firms report a downturn in new orders from the UK market but a positive trend in export new markets. Only the smaller firms"—
this will interest my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire—
with fewer than 100 employees indicate a positive trend in UK new orders.
The importance of engineering is recognised fully throughout the House. Those involved in engineering are literally engineers for change and they are crucial in bringing about the sustained development and expansion of our economy that are necessary. I assure the House, as I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government are fully committed to driving forward the engineering sector to bring the success and the growth that it warmly deserves.

Cuba

Mr. George Galloway: I hope that today's debate will be unusual in several ways. First, I come not to berate the Government, as I normally do, but to some extent to praise them, certainly in the enlightened form of the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate. Secondly, I have not come to make the kind of speech—which is sometimes made in the House—that generates more heat than light. I genuinely wish to elicit some answers and some direction from the Government of the kind that was apparent in the remarkable debate in the House of Lords on 13 March, which I am sure the Minister has read.
Peers as varied as Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Lord Rees, Baroness Young, Baroness Hooper, Baroness Miller and Lord Wright of Richmond—I could go on—demonstrated absolutely remarkable unanimity. Towards the end of the debate, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein remarked:
My Lords, in the light of the unanimity of the remarks made this afternoon from all quarters of the House, will my noble Friend ensure that the UK makes the strongest possible representations on this subject"—
the Government's policy towards Cuba
in Washington?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 845.]
I hope that today's debate can be something like that.
I praise the current state of relations between Britain and Cuba. There have been two ministerial visits by the lucky Minister for Science and Technology. Baroness Young, an absolutely formidable campaigner for improved British-Cuban relations, has also visited Cuba. There have been trade delegations from this country to Cuba and there have been three inward missions in the past year or so, including a visit just the other week by the Cuban Minister of Justice.
Those visits reflect the reality of Cuba's position as an increasingly popular place for the international community, as a destination for tourists, as a site for investment and as a partner in trade. The Minister will know that tourism is multiplying in Cuba. There were 19,000 British visitors last year and 25,000 visitors are expected this year. There is a weekly flight from Stansted and a second weekly flight is expected from May.
There has been a fantastic upsurge in foreign investment and trading opportunities in Cuba. Some 200 foreign companies now operate in Cuba, ranging from Benetton to the Wellcome Foundation. One can only hope that Cuba is spared Benetton's advertising campaigns. Those companies are increasingly important for Cuba's economy.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galloway: I am not sure that the project of seeking light rather than heat will be served by giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will seek to be constructive.

Mr. Arnold: I find the interest that the hon. Gentleman shows in trade and investment in Latin America


fascinating. Will he tell the House what, if any, personal interests he has in Cuba? The House would be interested to know.

Mr. Galloway: If I had a commercial or pecuniary interest in Cuba, you can be sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would have declared it. As I do not, I did not. It was, as I suspected, a mistake to give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Perhaps, one day, I shall learn.
The European Union is an increasingly important economic partner for Cuba. It is the island's main import source, accounting for 37 per cent. of all imports, and its main export market, taking 27 per cent. of all exports. It is the most important aid donor and the most important source of foreign investment. Ninety of the 212 joint ventures in Cuba operate with European capital. That is especially important for us as a country that is part of that development.
It is no surprise that, having gone through some very difficult years recently, the Cuban economy is definitely on the way up and on the move. Gross domestic product grew last year by 2.5 per cent. and that growth rate is expected to be bettered this year. In most sectors, from nickel to the lovely Havana tobacco, the economy is on the up. Cuba has an extremely well educated, healthy population. It has important raw materials, relatively developed industry, a relatively large population and, therefore, a relatively large market, and its people have shown great creativity, productivity and ingenuity in coping with recent difficulties. Cuba is also a country—I commend it to the Minister—of great physical beauty. Indeed, I invite him to walk with me along the Malacon, where he will see exactly what I mean.
Lest the idyllic picture that I paint mislead, I must say that there is a storm brewing, and that is what I shall concentrate on. That storm is the Helms-Burton Act, which is the child of the Toricelli Act, against which the Government have set their face for many years. The Act is a series of measures taken in 1992, in the heat of the presidential election campaign and under pressure from the well-organised Cuban American lobby, in the hope of swinging the crucial New Jersey electorate and the even more crucial Florida electorate the way of the winning candidate. Helms-Burton is now law, we are again in a presidential election year, and the Cuban American lobby is determined to use to maximum advantage the remaining months of the pre-election period.
The Helms-Burton Act is an especially pernicious piece of legislation. Those are not only my words, but the words of virtually every Government in the world. The Act makes it possible for the former owners of property in Cuba to sue companies, through the US courts, for damages if those companies use what is claimed to be the former owners' assets in Cuba. It denies US visas to the directors of those companies and their families and limits US aid to countries that trade with Cuba. That is especially important for the countries of the former Soviet Union. The Act is also designed to stop organisations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, lending money to countries that trade with Cuba. Again, that provision is particularly aimed at Cuba's former Soviet trading partners.
This draconian set of measures has led to the production by the Cuban American National Foundation of "Cuba's Hall of Shame", which is a black list of

companies, many of them British, many of them household names and many of them important. The Cuban American National. Foundation very definitely intends to have those compa United States courts before long.
It is a sign of the times that some of those companies have lobbied me and that all of them have asked me not to mention their names in this debate. That is the fear that the measures, which are extraordinary in their extra-territorial nature, have placed in the heart of even the boldest British corporations. I know, and the Minister knows, that there are British companies that have invested millions of pounds in both Cuba and the United States. They stand to lose millions of pounds if the legal cases planned by Cuban emigré organisations go ahead.
This week, I was visited by directors of an up-and-coming British company that is achieving significant economic results in Cuba and the United States. The directors are in a state of fear and alarm as a result of what is likely to happen. Ten European companies, including three in the United Kingdom, are likely to be among the first legal victims.
The Helms-Burton Act has aroused opposition throughout the world. Baroness Young wrote to the President of the Board of Trade:
we are concerned that beyond
the measures already taken by the Government
there will also be the need for the British Government to protect further the interests of its nationals and its commercial interests if they are to be subject to vexatious litigation or arbitrary denial of visas.
Those are not the words of a member of the Cuban solidarity campaign, or of a left-wing socialist like me; they are the words of Baroness Young, who has Britain's economic interests, as well as Cuba's, at heart.
In that light, I shall run through several of the aspects that I hope the Minister will mention. I apologise to him that not every one of them has been communicated to his office; if he finds it impossible to answer directly today, I shall be more than happy to receive a letter from him, laying out the Government's position.
The questions are as follows. What further and continuing action will the British Government take to protect companies and individuals who are the subject of litigation in US courts? What representations have the Government made to the US Administration to encourage the President to use his right to waive prosecutions in the national interest? Will the Government be prepared to join any British company operating in Cuba and in the US, and thus subject to US law, to defend any action that might be brought, as the Canadian Government have declared themselves willing and ready to do?
Are the Government prepared, separately or with other nations, to challenge in the US courts the constitutionality of the Helms-Burton Act? What is the position in respect of the European Union? Is a World Trade Organisation action likely to succeed, given that the US may invoke its national interest in defending itself against any complaint?
What discussions have taken place with the Canadians and Mexicans? What is Her Majesty's Government's view about a possible action against the US by the two other North American Free Trade Agreement partners, which is under active discussion and consideration by them?
Have the Government had any discussion with Governments in the Caribbean region about their concerns about the Act? Are there any existing or new legal powers


that might be invoked to protect British interests in that regard? Did the Prime Minister, he issue when he met President Clinton in Egypt?
I shall conclude by mentioning some issues that I have raised with the Minister before. It is time for the Foreign Office to follow the Department of Trade and Industry in making an official visit to Cuba. I assure the Minister that he would receive a warm welcome. His colleague, the Minister for Science and Technology, spent a fascinating time with President Fidel Castro, and I know that a man of the Minister's generation—if not of the same political stripe as Castro—would find such a visit fascinating. That would do a great deal to show the United States that we, as a country, will stand up for our own interests and for constructive dialogue and reform.
I know that the Minister is worried about the United States' response. The United States, especially in an election year, is not shy about interfering in British domestic affairs. The President is not shy about interfering in the north of Ireland. He is not shy about making electioneering barnstorming visits to Britain and interposing his personal views about the future of Ireland. I happen largely to share those views, but if the Americans are not shy about interfering in British affairs, why should we be so terrified?
We welcome the fact that Her Majesty's ambassador in Cuba has a £150,000 fund for projects that help economic reform in Cuba. That was an innovation. Will it be continued and can it be increased? Welcome though it is, it is a small figure.
The Minister will not be surprised that I close on this subject because he and I have argued about it many times. When the issue of the embargo quarantine against Cuba comes up in the United Nations this year, why cannot we join the great majority of countries in the world, including the great majority of our European partners, and vote against that foolish, short-sighted policy? We are left in increasingly difficult company by not making our views against the embargo clear. Instead of abstaining when that matter returns to the United Nations, will the Government give active consideration to casting their vote for better relations between Britain—and, indeed, the world—and Cuba?

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I thoroughly endorse everything that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said, and I add a brief rider. The hon. Gentleman urged the Minister to go to Cuba and have a talk with Fidel Castro. I add emphasis to that urging, for the following reason.
As a Government and as a country, we should make it clear to Fidel Castro that he should not undertake the deplorable actions that he took in shooting down the aeroplanes. There was no excuse for it, even if it took place in Cuban air space—and there are questions about that. It seems to me to have been the action of a man who has been backed into a corner and is trying to continue to resist all efforts to develop his country, in which, as the hon. Member for Hillhead said, Britain has been in the forefront.
I hope that, while taking the American Government to task for their deplorable act, which is unforgivable from every standpoint, my hon. Friend the Minister will take advantage of a meeting with President Castro to express that point of view.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) for initiating the debate. He knows my interest in Cuba. I thank him for his comments, although I suspect that his commendation of me may be fatal to my career. He knows that we take our relationship with Cuba very seriously. I shall try, in what remains of the debate, to answer as many of his questions as I can, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for Cuba and Latin America, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who is unfortunately out of the country, will respond by letter to the items that I do not deal with.
We have maintained continuous diplomatic relations with Cuba, and a British embassy in Havana, since the end of the second world war. Nothing has changed in that time. I think that hon. Members will agree that Cuba has the potential to be a significant market for exporters and investors alike. Her Majesty's Government therefore actively encourage trade between our two countries, as the hon. Member for Hillhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said.
It is also important to note that many of our closest partners have wide-ranging and important interests in Cuba—notably our European Union partners, which the hon. Member for Hillhead mentioned, Canada and, in different ways, the United States—and that we consult all of them on developments.
There is recent evidence that improvements in the political and economic position in Cuba are still far from complete, but I believe that the situation is gradually—I emphasise gradually—changing for the better. We believe that Cuba's potential role in the Caribbean is as yet a largely unanswered question, but it is one of undeniable significance.
Drugs and drug-related crime pose the biggest threat to the security and stability of the Caribbean islands. Cuba, by virtue of her geographical position astride the air and sea routes from South America to the United States and Europe, is an especially attractive target for drug traffickers. The Cuban Government recognise that threat and the importance of close international co-operation in the fight against drugs.
The United Kingdom's counter-narcotics co-operation with Cuba is increasing. As recently as last week, the Cuban Justice Minister, who heads the Drugs Commission, visited the United Kingdom to help strengthen that mutually beneficial relationship.
In the past two years, Her Majesty's Government have provided bilateral assistance in the form of equipment for Cuban customs and police. We have also provided funding for the training component of the United Nations drug control programme project to bolster the enforcement capabilities of Cuban anti-drugs agencies. During the practical part of one such course, run by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, there was a significant cocaine seizure at Havana airport—a more rapid return on


a training course than is usually expected—and, only last month, United Kingdom-Cuban customs co-operation led to the seizure of 165 kg of cocaine.
We are also working closely with the European Commission and our European Union partners to produce a report on the drugs problem in the Caribbean which will identify weaknesses and recommend ways in which the EU might assist. As part of that initiative, representatives of an EU study group recently visited Cuba, where they were offered every support by the Cuban Government. Anti-drugs co-operation is an area in which I suspect that co-operation will intensify in the future, and upon which there are many compliments to be paid.
Cuba's potential regional role is not limited to the fight against drugs: imagine a market-oriented Cuba, reintegrated into the economy of Caribbean, and consider its impact on other countries in the region—particularly in areas such as tourism and agriculture. Signs of economic progress exist, which make such visions more than mere idle supposition. We can anticipate the trade-creating effect that a reintegrated Cuba would have on its neighbours in the Caribbean and its surrounding countries.
However, the reform process is faltering and Cuba is not getting any closer to democracy, which may hamper the development of her economic links in the region and further afield. Of course, we hope that economic reform in Cuba will continue. We also hope that our political relations will progress in tandem with our improving trade and investment links. However, difficulties remain: human rights and lack of fundamental freedoms remain areas of particular concern.
As hon. Members well know, Cuba is one of the few remaining communist countries in the world and she has not yet made significant political reforms leading to political pluralism. We favour dialogue and co-operation to encourage such progress, and to support a process of peaceful reform, a respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and broadening the scope of private initiative.
We have called for an ending of arbitrary detention and the release of political prisoners; fair trials with independent courts; freedom of expression; free media; the right of citizens to seek political or public office individually or as members of parties or organisations; publication of legislation; lifting of restrictions on non-governmental organisations; Cuba's accession to the international covenants on civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights; and co-operation with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights—an issue that goes back to the time when I was in charge of the portfolio.
We fully endorse the United Nations Special Rapporteur's most recent report, dated 7 February 1996, in which he records that serious violations of civil and political rights continue to occur in Cuba. He goes on to state that political pluralism and freedom of expression still have not been officially recognised, and that those who defy these prohibitions are subject to persecution, discrimination and imprisonment.
If there has been any improvement in Cuba, it has been in the new climate of discussion that has emerged in intellectual sectors which called into question aspects of the system. I regret to inform hon. Members that the human rights situation appears to have deteriorated since

the report, with the arrests and apparent detention without trial of members of the dissident group Concilio Cubano. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear to the Cubans our regret at this act.
I have identified areas where we would expect to see tangible progress to accompany our constructive involvement. Part of this involvement is—as the hon. Member for Hillhead was generous enough to recognise—in the form of financial funding. Hon. Members will be aware that, since the collapse of the socialist bloc, Cuba and her people have fallen on hard times due to a severe shrinkage of the economy. Although there is no bilateral aid programme, the United Kingdom contributes significantly to EU aid, which is approximately £18 million a year, and covers humanitarian assistance, support via non-governmental organisations and economic reform.
As part of our efforts to encourage economic reform in Cuba, Her Majesty's Government established a British partnership scheme in 1995 through which £150,000 is available for suitable projects. Three projects, totalling approximately £96,000, have been agreed so far. The first project is for the supply of office equipment to Cuba's new tax office. Taxes were reintroduced in 1995 as part of Cuba's economic reforms, so not everything about reform is good. The second project, designed to offer enlightenment about the workings of free markets, is for the supply of computer equipment, teaching materials and economics books to the Ministry of Economy and Planning's training school. The third project is for the training of Ministry of Foreign Commerce officials in macro-economics.
There has been an extensive exchange of business delegations, Ministers and officials responsible for trade, investment, health, justice and other areas. However, in line with Her Majesty's Government's policy, there are currently no plans for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to visit Cuba.

Mr. Galloway: rose—

Mr. Davis: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have quite a lot to say—he will understand.
Because the United Kingdom enjoys normal trading relations with Cuba, Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the efforts of United Kingdom firms to take advantage of the growing civil market opportunities, especially investment and joint ventures, that will arise as Cuba continues with the reform of its economy along market-oriented lines.
To that end, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in the process of reinforcing its commercial staff at the British embassy in Havana. At £19.2 million, the level of British exports to Cuba remains small because of continuing Cuban indebtedness. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom ran a surplus of £11 million on its bilateral trade account with Cuba in 1995.
The Export Credits Guarantee Department is currently able to consider providing cover for projects and capital goods on cash or short terms of credit of up to two years, subject to suitable security. In addition, under the overseas investment insurance scheme, the ECGD can provide cover for investments against the risk of loss through war or expropriation, although I regret—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State informed the hon.
Gentleman by letter in November last year—that medium-term and long-term export credit cover is not available at present. There is a serious reason for that, on which I shall elaborate.
Cuba owes significant amounts of money to the ECGD as a result of claims paid to United Kingdom exporters several years ago. Before the ECGD can review its position, Cuba will have to normalise its position with the ECGD and, preferably, with other official creditors. This point is important, and I wanted to get it on the record. Once this has been done, the ECGD will undertake an objective review of Cuba's economic and political prospects to assess whether it is able and willing to service new debts on commercial terms in a proper manner.
In support of our trade promotion campaign, a bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement entered into force on 11 May 1995, as hon. Members will remember. Such agreements are designed to encourage investor confidence and investor flows by setting high standards of investment protection that are binding in international law.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has visited Cuba twice, most recently in September 1995. On that occasion, he signed an operating agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth Development Corporation that we hope will pave the way for further British investment in support of economic reform.
In the light of the efforts by Her Majesty's Government and the private sector alike, I shall now say a few words about the United States embargo against Cuba. Hon. Members will not be disappointed to learn that we cannot condone any activities that serve to hamper free trade. We have always held that the United States embargo is primarily a bilateral matter for the two Governments concerned. We do not consider the United Nations General Assembly the correct forum in which to discuss the matter, hence our traditional abstention on the vote on the annual Cuban resolution against the embargo.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: What about the Helms-Burton Act?

Mr. Davis: I was about to refer to that. We are deeply concerned by the measures in the Helms-Burton Act—which passed into United States law earlier this month—that serve further to tighten and internationalise the embargo. We have lobbied the United States Administration and Congress hard against extra-territorial and other provisions in the Act. Our lawyers are urgently studying the final details of the Act to assess its impact on British interests. We are considering what further action to take in conjunction with the EU and other key partners.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the fact that the Helms-Burton Act contains several objectionable provisions, in particular the attempt to extend the powers of United States courts over legitimate business activities of British companies who are active—or who would like to become active—in Cuba and to deny United States visas to British citizens who are trading legitimately with Cuba under British law.
We shall press the United States Administration to use the greatest possible discretion in implementing those provisions. We are deeply concerned about the potential damage that the Act could cause to our legitimate trading interests and are urgently considering the appropriate British response to it.
At this juncture, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will do whatever they can to protect legitimate British business interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, the British Government deplore the recent shooting of two civil aircraft by the Cuban air force. Clearly, that has set back United States relations with Cuba. It could not be expected to do otherwise.
As we do not believe in isolating Cuba, we cannot share the sentiments that lie behind the Helms-Burton Act. Rather, with our EU partners, we feel that the best way to encourage economic and political reform in Cuba is to maintain a constructive dialogue as a means of encouraging reform and democracy there.

Construction Industry Training Board

1 pm

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing me to raise this matter today. Exactly two weeks ago, the Construction Industry Training Board announced that it planned to relocate its headquarters from Bircham Newton in my constituency to Peterborough. It also announced a comprehensive restructuring, but I shall concentrate on the relocation.
The CITB is answerable to Parliament under the Industrial Training Act 1982. The Secretary of State appoints the chairman and deputy chairman and is responsible for a number of other key matters. The CITB is one of the biggest employers in my constituency. I have always had an excellent relationship with the chairman of the board, Sir Clifford Chetwood, and the chief executive, General Ted Willmott. I have always been involved in debates in the House on the levy orders and I have been very much involved in the two reviews that have been carried out in recent years. I always felt that they trusted me. I trusted them and we worked well together.
I received no prior warning whatsoever of the announcement two weeks ago. I was not consulted and nor were the other local Members, one of whom is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is responsible for the CITB. I find it extraordinary that about a month before the announcement, I had a meeting with the chief executive, who told me that, in his opinion, there was no need to worry about relocation. I entirely accept that he is not a board member, but if that is not a duff steer, I do not know what is. I have been treated with complete contempt and a fair degree of arrogance. I am very angry indeed, as are my constituents. The chief executive, General Ted Willmott, has apologised to me for the inadequacy of communications and I accepted that, but there has been no apology or anything else from the chairman, Sir Clifford Chetwood.
The CITB is important to North-West Norfolk. It has 400 employees in my constituency. Roughly 291 jobs in west Norfolk will be threatened by the relocation. That will have a large impact on a rural economy. We are not talking about King's Lynn, Fakenham or Norwich, but a remote, rural part of west Norfolk. The relocation will leave a considerable social and economic gap.
The work force is utterly appalled, as are many other organisations. In the past week, King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council expressed its grave concern. The local chamber of commerce and Norfolk county council are in outright opposition to the relocation. At present, it remains a local issue, but I have no doubt that it will become a national issue in due course. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his place. He was the Minister responsible for the CITB a few years ago. I am also pleased to see in their places some of my friends among the Opposition who feel equally strongly about the matter.
When the CITB took over the disused RAF base at Bircham Newton in 1964, it established a training operation there, but in 1985 the headquarters was moved from London at a cost of £4 million and a further £5 million was spent to turn the buildings into first-class offices. I understand from Leslie Kemp, who is one of

my constituents and a former chairman of the CITB, that roughly £1 million has been spent on windows alone in the past five years.
What reasons have been given for the relocation? The reasons for such a momentous decision must presumably be fairly compelling. I examined the reasons that the CITB gave board members at its recent board meeting.
First, the CITB wants better access to industry and other organisations. It wants to be in a communications hub. That might have been an applicable 10 years ago, but in the past 10 years there have been numerous improvements to the transport infrastructure in west Norfolk. We now have an excellent electrified railway. We have had many road improvements. Next Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads will open a £24 million seven-mile dual carriageway scheme on the A47 west of King's Lynn, improving our links to the motorway network.
Secondly, the CITB cited the need for better operational efficiency and effectiveness, claiming that bringing operations together in a single modern building will allow for a reduction in management layers. There is also a need for greater integration of executive and operational staff. That may well have been the case 10 years ago, but modern office technology, faxes and e-mail greatly reduce the disadvantages of a split site.
The CITB is concerned about the availability of skilled staff and argues that a larger employment marketplace would make it easier to recruit better-quality staff, especially in accounts and information technology. That is manifestly not the case. Firms in King's Lynn such as Campbell's, Dows, Master Foods, Bespak and Porvair are all expanding and recruiting new middle managers, IT programmers and other personnel into west Norfolk. In Norwich, which is just down the road, the Norwich Union is one of the biggest employers in the country and has no problems recruiting people from local universities and colleges and bringing in people from elsewhere.
The CITB also argues the need for a change in culture. That underpinned all the arguments and the debate at the board meeting two weeks ago. It feels that only by relocating out of Norfolk will it secure that culture change. The papers provided at that meeting suggest that
relocation will provide an opportunity to update the skill base by replacing staff who performed adequately in the past, but who cannot perform at the level now required to meet the CITB's operational requirements.
That is an insult to my constituents and a slur on hard-working loyal people who have given their lives to the organisation.
My constituents want fewer lectures and more leadership from the chairman and chief executive, particularly when the outgoing chairman has not shown sufficient leadership. The London headquarters costs £400,000 a year and the staff who occupy it do not visit Bircham Newton anything like enough to provide the leadership that my constituents expect.
When I visited the CITB last Monday, I spoke to many constituents and staff. I saw the IT department, which has been the subject of much discussion, where I found people who were committed, motivated and hard-working. They appeared to be completely on top of their jobs. The only difficulty is that they have been unable to recruit a new systems analyst. Apparently, the post has been vacant for


the past six months or so. No doubt that is a problem, but I cannot accept it as the reason for spending £6 million on moving to Peterborough.
Let me examine the alleged unsuitability of existing buildings. I mentioned that a great deal of money has been spent on them. It cost £4 million to relocate from London and more than £6 million has been spent on the offices. That is a lot of money. The buildings are spread out, but, as the CITB made clear, under the restructuring there will be 90 fewer jobs at the headquarters. The staff occupy a number of buildings at the moment, but with the restructuring they can readapt and adjust. They will have a smaller headquarters staff and, with a little imagination and common sense, a huge amount could be done to the existing buildings without having to build a new office block at Bircham.
The work environment at Bircham is preferable to that at Peterborough. If I were an ambitious, bright graduate in IT or accounts or an up-and-coming middle manager, I would rather be at Bircham Newton in a lovely part of the country and a fantastic environment, driving some five miles into work, than in some large, impersonal, plate glass tower block in Peterborough where I would have to fight my way across a dual carriageway to the sandwich bar. The CITB has overlooked the work environment and the culture at Bircham. The organisation is about providing training to the young people of this country, and Bircham is a training centre: it has the plant and equipment and it is a hive of activity. If the CITB relocates to Peterborough, it will become just another amorphous financial services organisation and corporate headquarters.
Who has conducted the review? I asked the CITB whether the buildings at Bircham had been evaluated fully. The reply was that there had been an assessment, but no proper evaluation. That says a great deal. Mr. Richard McLoughlin and Mr. Mike O'Reilly were two of the consultants who carried out the review—both of whom are former directors of Wimpey, Sir Clifford Chetwood's ex-company. It seems to be a case of jobs for the boys.
What will the move cost? According to the CITB's figures, relocation to Peterborough will cost £6 million. That compares with the £3.5 million cost of building new premises at Bircham. But I am not suggesting that the CITB should construct a new building at Bircham, because I can advance a very strong case for ensuring that the existing buildings are adapted and adjusted to provide an excellent headquarters for the operation. According to its own figures, a move to Peterborough will mean an extra annual cost of £300,000, largely in rent charges.
We must have a comprehensive evaluation of the buildings at Bircham. It is an obvious point that has not yet been considered properly. The relocation argument collapses completely when one considers the economic factors. If one examines also the qualitative or judgmental factors, one comes to the conclusion that the CITB chairman and the chief executive have had a secret agenda for a long time: to move from Bircham to another site that is more convenient for them but not necessarily for Bircham employees, few of whom travel to and from other areas.
The staff at Bircham will not trust management and the CITB. They are very concerned about the future of Bircham Newton training centre. The future of training

within the CITB is presently under review and the number of staff at Bircham training centre is to decrease from 96 to 76. After all the assurances and the promises that they have been given, how can staff trust a single word that the chairman and the chief executive say? The simple fact is that they cannot.
I turn now to the conduct of the chairman and the other directors at the board meeting on 6 March. It is extraordinary that the outgoing chairman, who will stand down at the end of the month, is prepared to put to the board a momentous scheme that he will not implement. I have seen the board papers and they do not go into detail or examine fully all the options—particularly the obvious option of remaining at Bircham, which will save much money at a time when the industry is in some difficulty.
The vote at the board meeting was nine to six in favour of relocation. I am concerned that two proxy votes were disallowed. I understand that the holders of those proxy votes—to whom I have spoken at great length—were under the impression that their proxies would be valid. The CITB told them that the proxies, although usually valid only for votes on levy matters, could be used at the meeting. The two board members concerned had to attend other very important meetings and they decided not to go to the CITB meeting on 6 March because they were given absolute assurances that the proxies would be used to vote against any relocation. However, the proxies were disallowed and I want to know why.
The CITB chairman met the federations the night before the meeting and I understand that he told them that he had the full support of the Government and of the Opposition in deciding the CITB's future. It is extraordinary that the chairman did not do his homework. My hon. Friend the Minister wrote a letter to Ron Davies, the Director General of the National Specialist Contractors Council, in which he said:
I can, however, give you a categorical assurance that no decision has been taken by Government about the continuation of CITB as a statutory Board after its current term ends on 31 March 1998".
The chairman misled the federations.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend will recall that I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Specialist Contractors Council. Therefore, will he accept my assurance that the CITB reorganisation and the relocation does not have the support of the specialist sector? He can also take it from me that that sector does not believe that it has been consulted adequately about the proposals.

Mr. Bellingham: I am very interested in my hon. Friend's comments, because the Federation of Master Builders feels the same way. When the chairman, Sir Clifford Chetwood, assured the board that the relocation enjoyed the unanimous support of the federations, at best, it was a gross misrepresentation of the truth and, at worst, it was a downright lie.
To cap it all off, I gather that the board hurried to its conclusion in order to take Sir Clifford to a celebratory lunch, having effectively axed 291 jobs in my constituency. The conduct of the board meeting was absolutely shameful and Sir Clifford Chetwood—a captain and a knight of industry who has many admirers in this place and throughout the country—should be ashamed of himself. It reinforced my view, and that of


many of my hon. Friends, that Sir Clifford was determined to bulldoze the decision through the board at all costs before he stood down as chairman.
I support the CITB and I shall continue to do so in future as I believe that we must have a statutory training board with a levy to provide training for our youngsters and to maintain high safety standards. I am obviously pleased that it intends to invest in new training facilities in my constituency and I have no doubt that it could have a bright future. I believe also that the changes that the CITB is making to the field service and the streamlining of the headquarters—which will be painful in any event—can be justified and sustained.
However, I cannot under any circumstances support the relocation of the headquarters away from Bircham. I visited there on Monday and I found that the decision has completely shattered morale. There is a strong chance of industrial action at Bircham. When Sir Clifford Chetwood assumed responsibility for the CITB, it was rich in reserves, had very high staff morale and was building on the excellent work of Dennis Maiden, Derek Gaulter and Leslie Kemp: it knew where it was going. Sir Clifford is now handing over an organisation where morale is at rock bottom and everything is in a complete shambles because of the uncertainty and staff bewilderment. After all, the greatest asset of any organisation—particularly a training board—is its staff.
I believe that the new chairman, Hugh Try, has his work cut out: as things stand, he must push forward the very important reforms restructuring the field service and streamlining the headquarters, while simultaneously taking on the relocation, when the federations have not been consulted properly and in the run-up to the new levy. My hon. Friend, as the Minister who will take the levy through Parliament, will be aware that it normally goes through on the basis of consensus. If he is to bring the levy to Parliament without industry consensus—there is grave danger that, if the Federation of Master Builders and the National Federation of Specialist Contractors withdraw their support, it will not have the necessary percentage—there could be a crisis of confidence.
I am deeply pessimistic about the CITB's future if the board does not reverse its relocation decision. The new chairman must tell the board that the CITB has a lot to do, that it faces big challenges and that it could have a bright future. However, he must also emphasise that, in order to secure that future, he needs the support of Ministers, all hon. Members—including Opposition Members—and employees. As things stand currently, he will not have that support and the CITB's future looks very bleak. However, he has another option: I implore Hugh Try to seize the opportunity and recommend that the board reverses that part of its decision on 6 March relating to relocation.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission from both the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and the Under-Secretary?

Mr. Bellingham: indicated assent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): indicated assent.

Mr. Ainsworth: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on obtaining the debate and on the tremendous resistance that he is putting up to the proposals on behalf of his constituents. He is not alone and I know that there is a groundswell of resistance to the proposals in his locality, which includes not only the trade unions represented at the Construction Industry Training Board—I declare at the start of my remarks that my constituency has a sponsorship arrangement with the Manufacturing Science Finance union, which is one of the trade unions represented at the CITB—but the county council, Mr. Clive Needle, the local Member of the European Parliament, and the prospective parliamentary candidate for Norwich, North—Dr. Ian Gibson. So there is a groundswell of support for the hon. Member's campaign of resistance to the proposals.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk wishes to represent the people in his locality in his campaign, especially in the light of some of the very insulting and disparaging remarks that have been made about understandably sensitive matters. But resistance is growing wider, not only in the trade unions but in the federations.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned the National Specialist Contractors Association, and I wish to make a point about the process that was used to bulldoze through the proposals. I understand that a dinner meeting was called the day before the board meeting, and the board was told that the affiliated organisations, including the National Specialist Contractors Association, were all unanimously in favour of the proposals. That simply is not so. The director general, Ronald Davies, has spoken about his total opposition to the proposals. At a meeting in the House the other night, Denis Maiden, the director of the Federation of Master Builders, left us in no doubt about his absolute opposition.
Given the clear evidence of a lack of objectivity in the way in which the decision was taken to move the CITB, we need, at least, a reconsideration of that decision. We are looking to the Under-Secretary to apply the maximum pressure to get that reconsideration. There are very clear indications that the process was not correct and that the board was deceived about the level of support for the proposals. It was told that the levy payers and the trade were unanimous in support, but some of the levy payers are vociferously opposed. The work force is also opposed and there is a clear case for reconsideration.
I offer my support to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, as will many of my hon. Friends, the trade union movement and sections of the trade, in his efforts to resist the disgraceful way in which the transfer has been proposed. The trade unions at the CITB are not opposed to changes in the structure and the costs of running the operation, but the board was given only two options—to stay exactly as it is or move the entire operation elsewhere. That is not a true reflection of the options open to the CITB and there is a clear case for reconsideration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): I am sure that the House will agree that any hon. Member would feel as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) does about something that so seriously affects his constituency. He will know of my concern for rural areas, as I represent a constituency not very far from his, and therefore of my personal empathy with the situation in which he finds himself.
The Construction Industry Training Board, as the House will know, is one of the two remaining statutory training boards, and its existence owes much to the work of my hon. Friend at the time of the review of training boards some years ago, and to the unique employment pattern of the construction industry and the support of the employers in the industry for the statutory status. The CITB is a very large business whose sole function is to promote and provide training within the construction industry. It is funded partly by a statutory levy which is approved annually by the House, and partly from income generated through training contracts. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that not only is the levy approved by the House, but that the annual grant scheme proposals are approved by Ministers and the annual report and accounts are laid before the House. Although the rate of the levy is normally the result of consultation and usually has the support of at least 50 per cent. of the industry, that does not have to be the case before it is put before the House. However, it would be clear to the House that if that level of support were not forthcoming from the industry I would need good reasons to proceed.
Despite the requirements of the 1982 Act, it is the responsibility of the board of the CITB to manage its affairs and control its operations. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment can interfere with such decisions—much as I understand the wishes of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that it were otherwise.
Since 1982, the CITB has been the subject of periodic reviews concerning its status. The last review was in 1993 and, due to widespread support from the industry's employer organisations for its retention, it was reconstituted for the period until March 1998. The next review will therefore commence next year, and any decisions made by the board must be in the knowledge that there can be no guarantee of the outcome of that review and therefore the future of the board's status. My hon. Friend referred to a letter I sent two or three days ago to the secretary general of the National Specialist Contractors Association on that specific subject.
My hon. Friend also referred to the handling of the decision by the board and to its announcement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I share his concerns. It is apparent that many of the federations received little notice of the proposals, and some I know are aggrieved that they did not have more time to consider

the implications of the proposals. It is especially bad that no arrangements were made to communicate the decision to the staff until the following day, by which time the whole issue was in the media. That is not the standard of management that one would expect from a training organisation, which should be at the forefront of modern staff management techniques.
The House knows that the construction industry has gone through a long and painful period with a considerable amount of restructuring and reduction of overheads. It is no surprise that the CITB should do likewise, and in as much as the principle of the reorganisation is to refocus the board's work on its customers and maximise resources for training, the reorganisation is to be welcomed. I am conscious, as I go round the country, that there are many levy payers who resent the board's role, and who are unaware or unconvinced of the board's value. Any effort to concentrate on levy payers' needs will receive my wholehearted support. Equally, all levy payers—large or small—will expect the CITB to be run efficiently and effectively, and they will expect a reduction in the cost base and a concentration on front-line services. That will be the priority of the federations which comprise the bulk of the levy payers and put forward the nominations for the board. They will be primarily concerned that the levy is used to provide the best services for the needs of their members.
It is clear from my hon. Friend's speech that the relocation of the headquarters away from Bircham Newton vexes him most. It is, in my view, a separate matter to the reorganisation of the board, which I welcome, but it is for the board to decide. It must—as it did—examine the costs of relocation and any perceived benefits. Having done so and having reached a decision, it is the board's responsibility to explain it to its members and staff and convince them that it is right for the industry. The board will need to consider many issues, including the costs and benefits; the frequency with which people visit the headquarters and, therefore, the importance of the travel links, to which my hon. Friend referred; and whether better management and training could overcome the alleged cultural difficulties, to which my hon. Friend also referred.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East put their cases powerfully. My hon. Friend has done so not just today, but when he sought a special debate two weeks ago after the announcement. I know that my hon. Friend had meetings with the outgoing chairman and with the chairman elect, Mr. Hugh Try, in whom I have total confidence and who takes over on 1 April. If the new chairman can be persuaded by my hon. Friend to re-examine the matter and to consider my hon. Friend's representations, that is for the new chairman to decide. Whatever happens over the next few months, it is clear that there are many bridges to be mended and that there needs to be a considerable improvement in the handling of what is obviously a sensitive and important issue.

Fishing Communities (Northumberland)

Mr. A. J. Beith: Fishing communities have an important place in the life of Northumberland. They are tightly knit communities with strong family ties, and many fisherman can trace their fishing ancestry through many generations. Traditionally, vessels have passed from father to son. Around 230 vessels are registered with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at ports from North Shields to Berwick. Most are small, multi-purpose inshore vessels and traditional beach-launched Northumberland cobles. Most of the vessels are skipper or family owned.
With the exception of Blyth and Amble, fishing activity at Northumberland ports has declined steadily since the early 1980s. There has been a change in the structure of the local fleet, with a growing number of smaller vessels. Those changes do not relate wholly or perhaps even mainly to the effects of the common fisheries policy, which is receiving widespread attention, although some of them are consequential. Our part of the world does not face the acute problems that confront our colleagues in the south-west, with flagged Spanish vessels and competition from neighbouring countries, but we face all the problems of quotas and the stringent enforcement of inspection in this country. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind today's Daily Mail headline:
We obey the rules and they cheat".
The European Commission report published yesterday emphasises that whereas enforcement in Britain is rigorous, it does not appear to be so in many other countries. We cannot allow that disparity to continue, because our fishermen suffer greatly by it. There is an argument for a stronger European institution, to ensure the same standard of inspection throughout the European Union.
The decommissioning scheme introduced in 1993 has also contributed to the reduction in fleet size, and it may have an increasing effect. The root is the decline in fishing opportunities, arising partly from natural change, past over-fishing and Government decisions. There have been marked changes in fishing patterns. Traditionally, cod, haddock, nephrops and whiting were the area's main catches, although there was once a significant herring fishery. That is no longer a major part of the area's activities because herring declined so severely.
Between 1984 and 1994, the volume of cod landed fell by 61 per cent., haddock by 74 per cent. and whiting by 69 per cent. Inshore shellfish fisheries for lobster and crab are also suffering decline. Landing figures have fallen markedly since the early 1960s, and it is clear that the area's fishery industry is in decline. The lack of any limit on the landing of berried female lobsters is a regular complaint of the fishing community, which hopes for action after years in which a proper conservation policy has not been followed.
The industry's decline has been exacerbated by the Government-imposed decision to phase out the licensed salmon fishery, without any scientific justification but as a result of pressure from landowners in Scotland and angling interests. I take a dim view of the Minister's attempts to heavy the National Rivers Authority into giving him different advice. He put the NRA under considerable pressure to recommend a later start to the

season, with no fishing before 1 May. The effect will be to allow the same fish to be caught by Scottish nets, fixed engines and rods. As it is, the large majority of early fish are already caught by Scottish nets and rods.
The decline in other sections of the fishery has been partly offset by increased landings of nephrops, but the total value has fallen in real terms. The nephrops fishery is left as a crucial element in the survival of the area's fishing fleet. However, some fishermen in small communities are no longer able to fish for cod, whiting or herring and will soon be unable to fish for salmon because of the Government's decision. They are left without the ability to benefit from the prawn fishery because their boats are not of a suitable size, so they are dependent on the limited lobster and crab fishery.
The industry's importance becomes clear when it is set against the problems of the whole area. The north-east has the highest unemployment in mainland Britain. The area covering Amble and Seahouses had average unemployment of 12.3 per cent. in 1995, with a rate of 16.7 per cent. for males. The industry is significant not only for the fishermen but for people who work in the supporting industries. Fishing-related jobs account for about 2.6 per cent. of the Alnwick work force. The North East Fishing Forum reported that from the Tyne to the Tweed around 1,350 people were employed in jobs directly relating to fishing and that a further 2,000 jobs were supported by the industry. Those jobs are vital to an area whose economy is fragile.
There has been a decline in the number of full-time fishermen in many of Northumberland's ports. Seahouses lost 38 full-time fishermen between 1984 and 1994, which is more than half the previous total. Seahouses has only five keel boats now instead of 25 two decades ago. Berwick lost most of its fishermen, and Beadnell and Boulmer lost nearly half their fishermen. Holy Island is declining as a fishing port, and Craster has also declined to a low level. There have been increases in Amble and Blyth because of the nephrops fishery, but there has been a decrease at almost every other port.
In November 1995, Nautilus Consultants reported to the European Commission that many fishermen would find it hard to obtain work outside the industry, largely because many of them—although experienced—do not have formal training skills beyond basic safety requirements. Qualified skippers found it relatively easy to obtain other work, but crews found it much harder. When fishermen do find other jobs, they have strong qualities that make them attractive to employers. They are prepared to work long and unsociable hours, have a knowledge of the sea, navigation and mechanics, and are familiar with team work—all of which make them good employees. More than 70 per cent. of fishermen in the study who obtained jobs remained in them and worked happily to the satisfaction of their employers.
Past policy has been aimed at reducing the size of fleets throughout the European Union without paying enough regard to socio-economic circumstances and the ability of fishermen to find alternative employment, which depends on factors such as job availability and pay. Decommissioning alone does not take those factors into account. There are European programmes to deal with such changes, and the purpose of this debate is to press the Government to make maximum use of them in areas where the decline of the fishing industry has a particularly harsh effect on small communities.
The PESCA scheme aims at dealing specifically with redeployment, but there are two fundamental conditions. Any project must comply with EU guidelines on state aids for the fishery sector, and it must not lead to an increase in fishing effort. Eligible projects include support for the creation or development of local economic promotion, support for local and community initiatives that generate enterprise, support for small and medium-sized businesses, information and advice on business performance and access to markets, support for employment and training projects, and schemes to innovate and restructure industry.
PESCA funding can be used to improve the skills of fishermen and to enhance their employability, although many fishermen want to stay in the industry—70 per cent. of those in the Nautilus survey would return to it if they had the opportunity. PESCA takes money from the European regional development fund, the European social fund and FIFG—the financial instrument for fisheries guidance. The ERDF deals with the promotion of alternative economic activities for business, particularly small and medium-sizes enterprises, including the promotion of tourism. That is highly relevant to Northumberland, which is a most attractive area. The European social fund covers vocational training, guidance, counselling projects and employment support.
There are funds available to safeguard and enhance fisheries. The FIFG includes support for the development of marine agriculture, such as feasibility studies, market research and improved marketing, promotion and quality of fish products, and research and technical assistance to improve the industry's environmental and economic sustainability.
Notably, other regions have been successful in obtaining funding for fishing communities. The Republic of Ireland has already spent £35 million out of the PESCA scheme, some of it on lobster stock enhancement, which is one of the things that we want in Northumberland. Scotland also has a scheme, although I understand that it is directed at those leaving the industry. Why has England apparently not got its act together? What is MAFF doing? One of the anxieties is that, because of the British rebate, Government Departments are not particularly zealous in pressing for money under these funds, because it is assumed that if we do not get money from these funds it will come back to us anyway in the rebate. That wholly defeats the purpose of such measures, which is to direct funds towards areas where the impact of European policies, or just general structural change, is such that an adjustment is needed. We need help. The Ministry is responsible for the promotion of the fisheries industry and the areas dependent on it, so it should ensure that we do not have to wait for some rebate cheque that goes into the general coffers of the Government but that we can use the funds for the purposes for which they are intended: to help hard-hit fishing communities.
The Nautilus study identified particular problems in Northumberland which make the area an ideal priority for funding. The lack of any dominant alternative industries means that it is important to have priority project areas. There have been discussions with fishermen, development trusts and local authorities, and they have extended to measures to enable fishermen to move into activities directly related to fishing, such as lobster stock

enhancement, and measures to enable fishermen to get into leisure activities which can provide employment—the Farne islands and other offshore attractions, for example, for which opportunities could be further developed. We have discussed measures to improve the training of fishermen in other seagoing activities and to help them to go into small business. Can we count on the Minister to back such initiatives? We shall need as much help from central Government as we can get.
One project designed to help rejuvenate the lobster fishery has already had a small offer of funds from MAFF. I think that it is only £5,000, but at least it is helpful. We have received European funding for a winch and slipway on Holy Island, but there is so much more to be done and there are many difficulties for local people to overcome. One development trust pointed out how difficult it is to get private finance for initiatives in largely rural areas. Private finance opportunities seem to be greater in large conurbations, where the institutions are located and where the projects are of a scale to lend themselves to private finance involvement. The rural areas rely heavily on pump-priming money from the public sector. There are sometimes difficulties with getting the money through, whether it is the European contribution or the British Government element.
Problems of infrastructure also need attention: harbour walls, facilities for the covered landing of fish, and storage facilities. Both Seahouses and Amble have such problems, which could be attended to.
I ask the Minister to recognise all the changes that I have described. Not just those that arise from the European common fisheries policy or from the rigorous enforcement of the quota policy, which I regard as an extremely unsatisfactory conservation policy—throwing dead fish back into the sea does not seem to me to be a sensible way of conserving it for the future—but other changes, too: the decline of some of our key fisheries and the artificial closure of the salmon fishery. All those leave him with a huge responsibility to try to assist Northumberland fishing communities to consolidate and use their fishing opportunity for the future, and to replace lost opportunities with new forms of employment to keep these families whose activities are so much part of the fabric of life in our area.
Every fisherman to whom I have spoken is worried about the future of his sons and daughters. The tradition was once that the son would go into the fishing industry. So few now feel able to assume that that will happen or, indeed, to encourage the next generation to go into the industry, that they must be given some other opportunity. Where resources are available, as in the European funds, we want to know that the Government are making every possible effort to draw those funds into measures to help an area that is quite hard hit.
We need the Ministry to help to cut through the bureaucracy, not add to it, as Government Departments sometimes do. I ask the Minister to give us all the help that he can. These communities have been extremely valuable and stalwart parts of the life of Northumberland, and they must remain so.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): It is the custom on these occasions for the Minister to congratulate the


hon. Member concerned on obtaining the debate, and I do so today. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for giving me the opportunity to respond to his concerns and to explain the support that the Government are giving to the fishing industry by way of grant aid.
As fisheries Minister, I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I have only one purpose and aim: to represent and promote the best interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry and its fishermen. That, of course, includes the fishing communities of Northumberland, who make an important contribution to the local economy through the direct employment of fishermen and through jobs onshore in the marketing, processing and service trades.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet fishermen from Northumberland recently when I visited ports throughout the country. I know at first hand, therefore, that the fishing industry between the Tyne and the Tweed is based on a diverse range of activities which exploit a number of different stocks. An example of that is to be found in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, which has a significant shellfish processing industry. Like North Shields and Amble, it is developing prawn processing facilities based on a growing nephrops fishery. That has undoubtedly helped to mitigate some of the more acute problems which result from the more general over-fishing that affects so many coastal communities today, not just in Europe but throughout much of the world.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, traditionally the Northumberland industry has relied largely on landings of cod, haddock and whiting. More recently, it has developed its catch of nephrops. Like other parts of the UK industry, it has been affected by the pressure on North sea stocks and the need to manage fishing efforts if stocks are to be conserved for the future. In managing fish stocks, a difficult balance must be struck between the fishermen's desire to catch as many fish as possible and the need to avoid stocks being reduced to the extent that they risk collapse. That sometimes means that significant cuts have to be made in quotas. My aim, however, is to ensure that any cuts are kept to the minimum necessary to protect stocks and to allow severely depleted stocks to recover. I am glad, therefore, that in the Fisheries Council last December we were able to agree that only a 3 per cent. cut was needed for North sea whiting, that no cut at all was needed for North sea haddock and nephrops, and that we could have an 8 per cent. increase for North sea cod.
A more local example of the concerns about stocks is provided by the report on salmon net fisheries, which the Government presented to Parliament in 1991. It concluded that the north-east coast salmon driftnet fishery should be phased out to make it easier to manage individual stocks. It recommended, however, that that be done gradually, as existing netsmen left the fishery, so as to avoid any undue hardship. That is what is being done, and we have no intention at present to introduce measures which go beyond the report's recommendations. I do not think that I have been "heavying up" anyone, and I certainly have not been heavying up the National Rivers Authority.
One of the report's recommendations was that the opening date for the driftnet season should be postponed until 1 May to protect spring-run salmon. In the event, no change was made. We recently asked the NRA to look again at that recommendation as part of a wider review of controls on the exploitation of spring-run salmon in the

fisheries for which it is responsible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a similar request to the Scottish district salmon fisheries boards in respect of the fisheries for which they are responsible. Those requests were made in the light of the salmon advisory committee's report on the run timing of salmon, which recommended, among other things, that consideration be given to additional controls in commercial and recreational fisheries.

Mr. Beith: I have to tell the Minister that he is wrong. The report did not recommend the phasing out of the north-east driftnet fishery at all. The report described the circumstances, and Ministries decided in the light of that to phase out the fishery. The Minister is quite wrong to attribute that recommendation. I ask him to make it clear that on no account will he seek to enforce a partial change in the season time in the north-east driftnet fishery if no change is made in Scottish net and rod times.

Mr. Baldry: I think that we must agree to differ on the right hon. Gentleman's first point. As for the second, as he knows, any change in the opening date of the season will have to be effected through a byelaw. It will have to be advertised in the normal way, and time must be allowed for objections to be submitted to Ministers. We shall take full account of any objections received in deciding whether to approve such a byelaw. That is not unusual: I spend a good deal of my time trying to reconcile the interests of different users of marine resources. Of course, everyone must be given the opportunity to be heard before any change is made.
I am also aware that shell fishermen in Northumberland have been having a difficult time in recent years. Expert advice about their problems is being made available by the Directorate of Fisheries Research. There have been requests for us to introduce legislation to ban the landing of berried hen lobsters to protect the breeding stock. That is one of the many aspects of shellfish conservation currently being addressed by the Fisheries Conservation Group; in the meantime, this local problem might be better dealt with locally. It is open to the Sea Fisheries Committee to consider whether it would be proper for it to make a byelaw to prohibit such landings, but there are more effective means of protecting the breeding stock, of which the simplest is to increase the minimum landing size for lobsters. I hope that those in Northumberland who are concerned about the matter will lend their weight to any proposals that emerge from the conservation group; I understand that the community involved is reluctant to take that simple step.
While it is vital to operate effective conservation and control policies, which are vital to the long-term future of the industry, it is clear that more immediate help is needed with both structure and infrastructure. That is why, on 14 February, I announced the launch of four EC grant schemes under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, which will provide the industry with substantial support. They will help to make the industry safer and to make its processors more competitive, and will help fishery-dependent areas to meet the challenges that they undoubtedly face. Up to £9.6 million will be available under the vessel safety, processing and marketing, port facilities and freshwater aquaculture promotion schemes over the next three years.
The EC vessel safety scheme provides grants for vessels to obtain essential safety equipment that is required under the terms of the Department of Transport's fishing vessel safety certificate. It supplements the existing national scheme, which will provide grant for projects that cost less than £3,000 or are not selected for EC aid. The processing and marketing scheme will provide valuable assistance for those who process fisheries and aquaculture products to enable them to upgrade their premises, increase capacity where that is required and produce added-value products. Projects aided by previous EC schemes include nephrops processing facilities, refrigeration and cold storage facilities, the upgrading of salmon and mackerel smoking facilities and even, I am told, the installation of herring sexing machines. The EC ports scheme will enable ports to improve their facilities for the fishing industry by providing services such as ice plants, or upgrading quays and moorings for fishing vessels.
Up to £6.1 million will be available over the next three years under the marketing and processing and port facility schemes. Awards under those schemes will be made in twice-yearly tranches. The final date for the submission of applications for consideration in the first tranche is 15 April. The freshwater aquaculture promotion scheme gives EC produce promotion grants to the freshwater aquaculture industry, mirroring the Sea Fish Authority's work on sea fish products.
I announced on 19 December that the national harbour grant scheme, which provided more than £2.2 million in aid for English ports in the three years up to 1994, would continue. Under that scheme, some £750,000 has been paid for improvements to the fishing harbours and facilities at Amble, Blyth, Holy Island and Seahouses since 1987. Up to a further £18 million will be available under the EC PESCA Community initiative for diversification of industry in English fishery-dependent areas up to the end of 1999.
All the grants that I have mentioned, apart from the PESCA grant, are available to the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom, and operate on "challenge funding" lines: projects compete for available resources without prior allocation to particular geographical areas. PESCA' s aim, on the other hand, is to assist the restructuring of the fisheries sector and help it to deal with problems of over-capacity and market weakness. It therefore targets a limited number of areas that have been designated as fishery-dependent. In Northumberland, those areas are the ports of Amble and Blyth and their respective travel-to-work areas, which include the smaller ports of Alnmouth, Boulmer, Craster, Newton-by-the-Sea, Beadnell and North Sunderland, Newbiggin, North Seaton and Seaton Sluice.
PESCA will provide aid under the European regional development fund—local and community initiatives that generate enterprise and lead to the development of small and medium enterprises; assistance to firms so that they can improve their business and access to markets; employment training under the European social fund; and specific fisheries measures under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance to help the fisheries industry to restructure.
All those measures should help Northumberland significantly, provided that the necessary projects are forthcoming from local interests. I certainly want to ensure that Northumberland receives its fair share of PESCA funds. My officials are ready to provide help and guidance for potential applicants, who can contact the ministry directly or through local port offices. The schemes are not, however, designed to provide funds to compensate for the loss of fishing opportunities, or to subsidise operations that are not inherently viable.
PESCA will be implemented locally, so that it can directly target the needs of particular areas. To that end, the Government Office of the North East and MAFF are convening a meeting next week with representatives of the North East Fishing Forum, the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee, local authorities and training and enterprise councils to discuss how PESCA funds will be used in the north-east. That will ensure that the needs identified by the North East Fishing Forum and in the Nautilus report on reconversion of fishermen can be addressed. I hope that by this time next week some of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about PESCA funds will have been dealt with.
As hon. Members know, the problems of overfishing that affect North sea stocks are not unique to that sea. For many years the European Community has operated a policy that fleets should not increase in size to conserve fish stocks; over the years, that has changed to a policy of actively seeking reductions in fleet capacity. The current multi-annual guidance programme divides the UK fleet into a number of segments, for each of which capacity targets are set. Segmentation is an important concept, which has had consequences for the Northumberland fleet.
One of the means that we have chosen to meet our targets for fleet reduction is voluntary decommissioning. Last year, we increased the funds available to £53 million over the period from 1993 to 1997. So far we have operated three schemes, which have successfully decommissioned 14,200 tonnes, or 6.6 per cent. of the fleet. Fourteen Northumbrian vessels have been decommissioned: that is equivalent to 64 per cent. of the eligible vessels from the county that have applied during the three years in which the programme has been running. Decommissioning is making a substantial contribution to our MAGP targets, and to our policy of streamlining the fleet into smaller, more efficient units.
Last year, because our figures showed that the target for the nephrops segment had been met, I decided that we should exclude that segment from the 1995 scheme. I am aware that that caused concern in Northumberland and other areas where the fleet is heavily dependent on catching nephrops, but it enabled the available funds to be directed at segments that were short of their target, and I believe that that was right. It is also right that we do not direct taxpayers' money at decommissioning vessels in the non-quota segment, including those primarily targeting salmon, where the MAGP target has been greatly exceeded.
A number of representations have, however, suggested that had I allowed the decommissioning of nephrops vessels that would have encouraged older demersal vessels to transfer to the nephrops segment. I accordingly sought views on that as well in a consultation paper. I urge anyone with an interest in the future of our industry to consider the suggestions carefully on the next round of decommissioning, and to give their views in writing. I will


take all those views into account in drawing up this year's decommissioning arrangements, which I hope to put to the House after Easter. A further £12 million is available this year, and an equal amount next year. We have been generous in the provision of taxpayers' funds for the restructuring of the fishing industry; I am confident that this year's and next year's decommissioning schemes will contribute greatly to that end.
Enforcement is another important way of protecting resources. In 1992, the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee received 50 per cent. Community financial assistance, amounting to nearly £300,000, towards the cost of a new fisheries patrol vessel to assist in its fisheries enforcement activities. Those funds were provided under a scheme that allows Community financial assistance to be paid towards eligible spending incurred by public-sector bodies in member states on enforcement of the common fisheries policy.
I, too, saw the press reports to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, although, strangely, we had not formally received the document at that time. It is

commendable that the United Kingdom has been recognised as properly enforcing Community law: that must be in the interests of our fishermen and everyone else. If there are slippages in enforcement in other member states, that clearly needs to be remedied. There is already a European Union inspectorate of fisheries, but I shall study the report closely. I do not want our fishermen to be disadvantaged in comparison with those of other member states.
All the major fishing communities in Northumberland are designated under objective 2 or 5b of the European structural funds. In other words, they are urban or rural areas that will benefit from economic development. Under those provisions of the structural funds, such areas can receive aid—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Rural Employment (Young People)

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives are being pursued to assist in providing employment opportunities for young people residing in rural areas; and if she will make a statement. [20122]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): The Department's full range of employment and training opportunities is available to young unemployed people in rural areas.

Mr. Llwyd: I am afraid that that reply does not cut any ice in Wales or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The Minister will be aware of the recently published White Papers. I have copies of all three of them here. There are 334 pages about assisting people in rural areas.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Have you read every page?

Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I have. I am most dismayed to find that there is nothing in those White Papers about the creation of employment for young people in rural areas. When will the Government take that subject seriously?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman may have considered those White Papers, but he clearly has not read them carefully. The White Papers do lay out proposals. The English one, for example, clearly states that the Government are considering ways of stimulating new businesses in rural areas. The Government believe that jobs are created by successful businesses. The Government cannot create jobs on their own—that requires successful, profitable business. The Government's job is to create the environment in which businesses can start and flourish. If the hon. Gentleman considers those documents carefully, he will find that there are clear statements of the Government's desire to encourage businesses to do just that.

Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a rural constituency such as mine, many young people earn their living in tourism, retail, the hotel industry, farming and small manufacturing industries? Are those not exactly the sort of businesses that would be decimated by the minimum wage and by the adoption of the social chapter? Is not resisting those measures—as the Government have done so far—the best thing that the Government can do to keep young people in employment?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend knows that my constituency is similar to his: it is also a large rural area. It is extremely important that we do not destroy jobs by implementing the policies that he describes. The minimum wage is recognised by every external commentator as a destroyer of jobs, yet it is still espoused by the Labour party, as is the social chapter, which the Government have clearly stated that they will never accept. The real hypocrisy,

however, occurred when the Leader of the Opposition gave the Confederation of British Industry the impression that he could pick and choose in the social chapter. The social chapter is dealt with by majority voting. Britain could be outvoted and have such a job-destroying measure imposed against its will.

School Accommodation

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost of school accommodation to cater for the increase in pupil numbers in 1996–97. [20124]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places rests with local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools. It is for them to decide their priorities for capital spending.

Mr. O'Hara: That answer really will not do. The nation's parents and governors are well aware that there is a backlog of minimum health and safety requirements in schools for which capital funds are needed, amounting now to billions of pounds, and Government capital spending has been halved in the past 20 years. Is not the Minister well aware that the chief inspector of schools has said that one in seven primary schools and one in five secondary schools are already suffering from cramped and otherwise inadequate accommodation? Are not the regulations that went through the House this week a pure blind to remove the Government's embarrassment at not finding the funding to meet schools' minimum requirements?

Mrs. Gillan: I detect a spending pledge there. In fact, Government capital support for schools for 1996–97 will be almost £700 million—a 6.7 per cent. increase on 1995–96. What the nation is waiting for, and what should cause the Labour party embarrassment, is Labour's education record. Perhaps it will be explaining to the teachers in Sheffield schools how it managed to make a blunder costing £1 million which resulted in the teachers saying that they lacked confidence in every stage of the education process in Sheffield. I shall not take any lectures from the Labour party, which cannot put its own house in order.

Sir Irvine Patnick: There is more. I have recently received a letter from Sheffield city council, with a copy of a—

Mr. John Marshall: Was it a council tax demand?

Sir Irvine Patnick: No, it was not a council tax demand. It was a resolution condemning the hypocrisy of leading Labour politicians—I have it here and anyone can see it—in seeking privileges for their own children which they deny to other people. Does that not show that, for once, Sheffield has got it right?

Mrs. Gillan: It does not surprise me. Labour's education policies are in a shambles. Labour Members say one thing and do another. I agree with the teachers in Sheffield who say that they lack confidence in every stage


of the process—the leadership, the planning and the allocation and delivery of funding to Sheffield's education system. That is the true picture of Labour, and the true picture of what Labour would be like in power.

Mr. Spearing: Will there not be some need for new educational construction in the coming years, particularly in secondary education, due to the proper requirements of the new national curriculum? As the Government are publishing new guidelines in the summer, would it not be appropriate for them to work out the minimum cost per place which would be appropriate following the guidelines? If they do not do that, will not some other official agency do it and show up the Government's irresponsibility in the matter?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman has participated in many debates on the subject, and he should be aware of the cost multipliers that are used, which are in excess of those areas that are laid out in the draft guidance. The cost multipliers are based on the real cost of providing new places and they are derived from an analysis of real projects. They represent a level being achieved by about a third of authorities and there is no reason why the rest cannot do the same.

Nursery Voucher Scheme

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the number of new places to be provided and at what cost under the nursery education voucher scheme; and if she will make a statement. [20125]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The Government's nursery voucher scheme will mean that, over time, there is a nursery education place for every four-year-old. The Government are injecting £390 million of new money into nursery education for four-year-olds over the next three years.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 70 per cent. of eligible parents have already applied for nursery vouchers in the four trial areas, thus proving the effectiveness of the scheme? Is she aware that, in my constituency, Labour-controlled Ealing council is withholding nursery provision money for 40 children whose parents want to send them to Wood End infant school because that school is grant-maintained? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, currently before the House, is excellent because it will take away that miserable power from local authorities, which they are abusing so much in Ealing and elsewhere?

Mrs. Shephard: I can confirm that 70 per cent. of parents have completed their forms—four out of five in Norfolk. I can also confirm that, by this time next year, there will be no room for councils such as Ealing to withhold nursery education from children whose parents want it.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Although we accept that the Secretary of State will extol the virtues of market forces in supplying nursery places—despite her better instincts and because

she is being driven by the No. 10 policy unit—what will she do about provision in areas, say a rural village, where the market does not provide places but where parents have vouchers to use?

Mrs. Shephard: Welcome to the self-described working-class hero. Given the hon. Gentleman's rapid conversion last night from working-class hero to—I think—Mohammed Ali, it can be only a matter of time before he is converted to market forces too. We know that Labour Members oppose choice in education and prize the interests of institutions above those of parents. The point of the nursery voucher scheme is that it will encourage many providers to register for it, as has already happened. Six hundred providers have registered to join the scheme from the private and voluntary sectors-40 of them are new providers. We certainly expect those providers, combined of course with local education authority provision and partnerships between the various sectors, to provide for the needs of our four-year-olds through the nursery voucher scheme.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour local education authorities that have refused to take part in this year's pilot scheme are denying places to a number of four-year-olds for purely ideological reasons? Is that not an absolute disgrace? Is the scheme not extending parental choice in a real and radical way? Once parents have experienced it, they will never want to go back to the old way of doing things.

Mrs. Shephard: Yes, it is indeed perverse in the extreme that such local education authorities should oppose a scheme that is investing a total of £750 million in good-quality education that is inspected, with proper educational outcomes, for four-year-olds. As I have already been quoted as saying, such opposition is indeed pathetic.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to top up the value of a nursery voucher for children with special educational needs. [20126]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a differential nursery voucher value for children with special educational needs.

Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that parents of children with special educational needs will be more than disappointed by that answer and the answer that he gave in last night's debate on the subject? It is miserable and miserly. Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) that nursery education for such children will require extra funding? What is the Minister prepared to do about providers who will be unwilling to take on those children for £1,100 worth of nursery vouchers?

Mr. Squire: If the hon. Lady takes the trouble to read our proceedings in Committee, she will realise that not only the Government but the Opposition spokesman and virtually all outside groups that specialise in special educational needs recognise that the way ahead is not


through a differential voucher. One of the many benefits of the voucher system is that it should enable earlier diagnosis of special needs—which I am sure she and the parents to whom she has referred will welcome. That does not change the underlying funding of LEAs. What the House approved last night was the granting of powers to LEAs that will be reflected in the same way as other LEA powers in the annual standard spending assessment. That will particularly assist children who are short of full statementing but who have special educational needs.

Ms Estelle Morris: It is becoming increasingly clear that nursery special needs provision is the most flawed aspect of a very flawed scheme; there are no more resources and inadequate inspection. Will the Minister reassure the House today that there will be no watering down of the special needs code of practice as it will be applied to nursery schools? In particular, will he confirm that that very important early assessment under the code will continue to be done by fully qualified teachers?

Mr. Squire: To repeat in part what I said to the House yesterday, the commitment to the code of practice, or something similar that better reflects the different nature of voluntary providers, is there and up-front. It is understood by the groups that I have met on behalf of children with special needs—[Interruption.] It is not a laughing point. Labour Front Benchers are smiling, but I promise them that this is a serious point. There may yet be aspects of the code of practice that do not exactly transfer into the different settings, but I have made a pledge to the House—I repeat it now—that, in those circumstances, an equivalent code will be produced, and it will certainly apply to the other providers.

Five-year-olds (Baseline Assessment)

Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to introduce baseline assessment for five-year-olds. [20127]

Mrs. Gillan: The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is undertaking a survey of current practice and views on baseline assessment, as the precursor to a full consultation exercise in the autumn.

Ms Hodge: Last year's standard assessment task results for 11-year-olds, in which more than half the children failed to reach the expected attainment level in mathematics and English, are a national scandal. Does the Minister agree that monitoring a child's progress throughout primary school is essential to raising standards and that a baseline assessment is essential to that monitoring? Will she join me in applauding the work that has been done by Birmingham city council in experimenting with baseline assessments? Will she tell the House what the Government's current plans are to extend the use of baseline assessments?

Mrs. Gillan: I certainly join the hon. Lady in applauding the many schools and local education authorities that already carry out some form of baseline assessment. I also admit that Birmingham's work is particularly well known, but there are some questions about how its approach guarantees consistency and parental involvement. I invite her to join me in welcoming

the sensible approach that the Government have taken. We are consulting fully on this matter, and we have asked the SCAA to undertake a survey of current practice and draw up proposals. I am sure that she will welcome that; it is the sensible approach.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to problems with Birmingham's baseline assessment scheme, to which the Labour party is committed, there are considerable concerns about the Labour party's attitude to testing? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather surprising to hear questions on education coming from the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who was responsible for a system in Islington that was so inadequate that even the Leader of the Opposition had no confidence in it for his child?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The situation he mentions just goes to prove that the Labour party is in a complete muddle and mess on its education policy. There is no doubt that baseline assessment is a good thing. The information that is gained enables teachers to develop detailed knowledge of children in the class so that they can match work to children's needs and abilities. We shall introduce proposals after examining good practice throughout the country, which is the sensible approach. I wish that Opposition parties would listen more carefully—they could then, perhaps, sort out the mess that their education policies are in.

Unemployment

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies she has made of the United Kingdom's record on reducing unemployment in relation to that of other major EU countries. [20128]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Studies show that the United Kingdom's unemployment rate is lower than that of most other European Union countries. We have a lower proportion of people unemployed than France, Italy or Spain and we are well below the European Union average.

Mr. Booth: As my hon. Friend well knows, having been conversant with the figures for some time, Britain has performed much better than the rest of Europe—indeed, 68 per cent. of our work force is in employment. Is not it curious, therefore, that, were we to believe Opposition Members, we are in a state of complete economic collapse? To what, then, does my hon. Friend ascribe our extraordinary success in Europe?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members continue to espouse tired, clapped-out old policies such as the social chapter and the minimum wage, which we know do not work. Anyone who doubts that need only look to the continental mainland and the recent experience of economies there which, having saddled themselves with the social chapter and a national minimum wage, find their unemployment rates higher than ours and rising whereas our economy, freed from such shackles under the Government's successful economic policies, has found unemployment falling and continuing to fall.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister realise that competitiveness and job creation are important in the long haul? This is Science, Education and Technology Week, and the lesson to be learned is from the way in which our competitors—countries such as Germany, France and others—have made a long—term investment in education. It is the long haul that counts, not the cheap attacks on not only our main competitors but our customers across Europe. Our competitors invest for the long term; is not is about time that we invested in higher and further education?

Mr. Forth: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's comparison. If he were to examine, as he clearly has not, student-staff ratios and class sizes, the length of courses and quality of output on the continent—

Mr. Sheerman: Germany.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting, "Germany" in a pathetically repetitive way. He may have forgotten that there are countries other than Germany on the continent and in the European Union. He should recall that we bear comparison with any country on the continental mainland in terms of the quality of educational output, especially in higher education.

Mr. Sykes: I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has left the Chamber. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard him rubbish the Government's policies for Wales. Would it be a good idea for my hon. Friend to remind the House and the country at large that the Koreans are thinking of investing £2 billion in this country and that Wales is at the top of their list? Does that not say a great deal for the Welsh? What does it tell us about the minimum wage and the social chapter in Europe?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right to point out that when hard-headed business men from around the world are looking to invest, they come to this country, having made their comparisons. We attract one third of the total inward investment from businesses in Korea, Japan and the United States. Such businesses have made comparisons and concluded that this country is the long-term best bet for their economic well-being. That must tell its own story. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not have to believe me; they need only examine the evidence of where the investment is going. That proves conclusively that the economic circumstances that we are creating are far superior to those of our competitors.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not admit the truth? The Government have fiddled the unemployment figures about 30 times since they came to power. Under the old figures, 4 million people would be out of work. Of those who have employment, some are on zero-hour contracts and many work part time. Is it any wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that he is going to be £9 billion short in his tax revenues for this financial year? Why? Because many people in so-called employment are employed only part time and are therefore not paying the income tax that he expected. I managed all that without mentioning the social chapter and the minimum wage.

Mr. Forth: I did it for the hon. Gentleman. I got it in twice before he got it in at all. He is unusually off the mark because he ignores the fact that the bulk of people in part-time work choose to do it and that many people, mainly women, freely choose it because it suits their domestic and personal circumstances. We respect that, even if he does not. The truth about his tired, old accusation about fiddled unemployment figures is that the method of counting the unemployed favoured by many Opposition Members, and even by so illustrious a body as the International Labour Organisation, results in a figure close to our claimant count. There is no fundamental disagreement about the number of people out of work in Britain.

Job Creation

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met EU Employment Ministers to discuss job creation. [20129]

Mr. Forth: Employment issues are now frequently discussed at meetings of the European Union Social Affairs Council, which are attended by EU Employment Ministers. At these meetings, I and other UK Ministers argue consistently that the way to create jobs is through fostering an economic environment in which business can prosper and through the development of competitive, flexible and efficient labour markets.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. When he next goes to Brussels, will he point out that Britain has become the enterprise centre of Europe because we have enjoyed a revolution in industrial relations and low corporate taxes and because of our opt-out from the anti-social chapter?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. We cannot point out often enough that the route taken by our partners on the continental mainland has demonstrated that the social chapter is a way to discourage enterprise and business and to lose jobs. The deregulatory route that we have chosen has demonstrated beyond all doubt and argument that we attract inward investment and provide jobs for the future, that our unemployment rate is falling and that our long-term and youth unemployment rates are lower than those of most of our competitors and partners in the European Union. Those facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Janner: Did the Minister discuss with colleagues in the European Union a problem that the Government have created—that even on the figures that they have built up over the years, with all the exclusions, there are vastly more people unemployed now than there were when they came into office?

Mr. Forth: That is of course true. Unemployment in Britain is higher than it was in the late 1970s, but the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have forgotten the background. Perhaps he did not read his brief. Unemployment throughout Europe was lower in the late 1970s than it is now. A detailed comparison shows that we have been more successful since the late 1970s than, regrettably, has the rest of Europe. His selective use of figures is no use at all.

Mr. Elletson: Has my hon. Friend discussed job creation in Blackpool with other European Employment Ministers? Is he aware of the good news that Mecca is to expand its facilities on Talbot road, creating 80 new jobs, and that Whitbread is to set up a brand-new complex, creating 50 jobs, which will include a Travel Inn and a Charlie Chalk fun factory? Does not that confirm Blackpool's position as Europe's leading entertainment and leisure centre?

Mr. Forth: I must confess to my hon. Friend that Blackpool's role as a Mecca has not been recently discussed in Brussels but I undertake to ensure when I next go there that I weave into my remarks in the Council of Ministers some of the typically positive points that he has made. Time and again, we hear doom, gloom and negativism from the Opposition, even about their own constituencies, whereas Conservative Members recognise what is going on up and down the country, not least in Blackpool, where businesses are creating new jobs.

Mr. Meacher: It is not a selective use of figures to point out that there are today fewer people in employment than there were in 1979. If deregulated labour markets are working, why are there now, even after the most recent fall in unemployment, more than 1 million fewer people in jobs than on the day the Prime Minister took office? The Minister seems to think that flexible markets and casualisation are desirable. Is he aware that the rise in part-time jobs since 1979 has compensated for less than a quarter of the full-time jobs lost? Even that has been bought at the price of a massive rise in job insecurity. Does the Minister not have a little humility? Is he not ashamed of an employment record that has doubled unemployment and hugely boosted insecurity? We now have the Deputy Prime Minister hell-bent on removing all the employment rights from half the work force.

Mr. Forth: That was convoluted even by the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary standards. He obviously thinks that if he repeats the word "insecurity" often enough, he will scare people, presumably in the hope that that will gain votes for his party. His analysis is extraordinary.
The reality is that what causes insecurity is unemployment. Our job as a Government is to create an environment in which unemployment falls. When the hon. Gentleman makes comparisons, he completely neglects to point out that the countries that are his model—the countries that are running social democratic policies, which are a characteristic of Labour Members—have higher rates of unemployment than we have. Labour Members seem incapable of understanding the connection between their regulatory, interventionist policies and high unemployment. They seem incapable of understanding our deregulatory policies which have helped to create low and falling unemployment. I will repeat that point as often as I have to in the hope that, eventually, Labour Members will understand.

Schools (Discipline)

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new measures she is taking to help schools to enforce firm discipline. [20130]

Mr. Robin Squire: We have recently announced funding for a programme of more than 60 projects to identify and promote effective ways in which to tackle pupil behaviour and discipline problems in schools. The projects are expected to run for three years at an overall cost of around £18 million.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has just said, does he agree that teachers, if they are to improve standards, need to have orderly and well-behaved classes? Is not one of the real problems, and a matter of major concern for all of us, that many teachers find it difficult because parents do not agree to allow them to exercise the amount of discipline that is necessary? Is it not time that we got parents to sign up to some form of agreement under which they will allow teachers to exercise the age-old tradition of in loco parentis?

Mr. Squire: I agree powerfully with the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. There is no doubt that a small minority of parents neither instil sufficient discipline in the home nor support teachers in their difficult job of ensuring that schools are properly disciplined places. That is why, over and above the measures that I announced in my first answer, we are actively investigating ways in which better to give teachers greater disciplinary powers within the classroom.

Employment Opportunities (Women)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has put in place since September 1995 to improve employment opportunities for women. [20131]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Since September last year, we have built on our range of measures to benefit women by, among other things, extending the successful out-of-school child care initiative.

Mrs. Gorman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her progress in making jobs more available and more flexible for women who especially value part-time work, which the Government do all that they can to encourage. Does she share my worry, however, that job opportunities for younger women could be scuppered if the European directive on parental leave is introduced through the back door, as the European Court of Justice is doing with the working hours directive? Does she agree that the directive would particularly hit younger women because it would affect women with children under the age of eight? It would be impossible for small employers to grant the designated time off, which would naturally make young women less attractive to employers.

Mrs. Shephard: This is properly a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the directive is covered by the United Kingdom social chapter opt-out. It therefore, in terms of the difficulties she underlines, emphasises the importance of that opt-out, negotiated by the Government.

Mr. Flynn: Why are three quarters of a million people, mostly women, counted twice in the Government's employment figures?

Mrs.Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman is most certainly mistaken, but he would undoubtedly wish to know that we have a far better record on employment for women than anywhere else in Europe. He might like to reflect on the fact that the policies that his party seeks to espouse—the national minimum wage and the social chapter—would increase unemployment for women, which I am sure he would wish to avoid.

School Funding

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to consult parents about the level of school funding. [20132]

Mr. Robin Squire: The Government take parents' views into account when deciding the annual revenue support grant. It is then for local education authorities to determine the level of funding for their own schools in the light of local needs and priorities.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister realise that parents will consider that the Government are not listening? Whether their children go to local education authority schools or to grant-maintained schools, the common experience of parents is that schools are underfunded. They believe that it is time the Government shifted major resources in favour of education and in terms of training, so that we can build up the enterprise of our country and the satisfaction of our pupils. Is it not a fact that the Government have undersold our education provision and that parents demand an improvement? Will the Minister point to a Conservative Member who can put his hand on his heart and say that the parents he represents are satisfied with the funding of their schools?

Mr. Squire: Fortunately, it is not one of my responsibilities to point to my hon. Friends. It is, however, my responsibility to trumpet abroad our success in getting such a good education funding settlement for the coming year—an average settlement of about 4.5 per cent., and rather higher in Essex, the county that the hon. Gentleman represents. Because a very large proportion of parents in that county have had the foresight to vote for GM schools, all the GM secondary schools there have had a settlement of 5 per cent., and that is very good when compared with the inflation rate or average salary increases.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When parents consider school funding, would it not be interesting for them to note the amount of school funding that gets through to schools, as far too many local education authorities hold back considerable sums to be disbursed by bureaucrats at county hall? Is not Kent county council, controlled by the Labour and Liberal parties, about the worst at holding money back from schools?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Even with the minimum requirement to delegate 85 per cent. of the relevant budgets, it is clear, looking at the spread of the percentage budget delegated, what a wide difference there is and how often it is Labour-Liberal Democrat councils that insist on spending more money at the centre and less at the chalkface.

Mr. Don Foster: Although I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), may I, through the Minister, congratulate the Secretary of State in at least one respect? Following the appalling murder of the head teacher Philip Lawrence, she immediately brought together representatives of teacher unions to discuss ways of improving safety in school. That work has gone ahead even more urgently following the tragedy in Dunblane. Does the Minister nevertheless think that it would be appropriate to widen that inquiry to involve parents' views, and will the Minister assure those parents that, if effective ways of improving school safety are agreed, resources to fund them will be found without recourse to the current resources used in the classroom?

Mr. Squire: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first point, which I believe will receive broad agreement across the Chamber.
We do take school security very seriously. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the working group, which has already contributed to legislation in the form of increased police powers to search for offensive weapons on school premises. I await the group's final report. I believe that all hon. Members are currently receiving correspondence in this regard, following the tragedy to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have no doubt that that, as always, will feed into our deliberations. Security is very high on our list.

Mr. Dover: Is it not true that the gap in the area cost adjustment—the difference in spending allowed between those in the south-east and those in the north-west, such as Lancashire—has been halved this year? Will the Minister try to ensure that the level of school funding is reflected in that, rather than the counties holding back the money and stopping that benefit accruing to Lancashire schoolchildren?

Mr. Squire: I can certainly confirm that, comparing the forthcoming year with the past year, some £90 million has been moved out of areas receiving the area cost adjustment and into the rest of the country. My hon. Friend will know, because he has studied these matters, that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment have set up an independent inquiry into the operation of the area cost adjustment. I hesitate to forecast the result of that inquiry in advance of the outcome of its deliberations.

Nursery Voucher Scheme

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will ensure that a place is available locally for all parents in receipt of a nursery voucher for their four-year-olds. [20133]

Mr. Robin Squire: I am confident that existing and new providers in the maintained, voluntary and private sectors will bring forward over time the places that parents want in exchange for nursery education vouchers.

Mr. Pike: The Minister will recognise that Burnley currently has one of the highest existing levels of nursery provision. He used the phrase "over time" in his answer—a phrase that was also used by the Secretary of State earlier this afternoon. What is the Minister going to say


to the parents of children in Burnley and throughout the country who have a voucher and a four-year-old, but do not have a nursery place to which to send their child? Will not that piece of paper be totally worthless, like so many other Tory policies?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman has asked his question with no regard to the background against which we are planning this considerable expansion of places. He knows full well that, depending entirely on where one lives in the country, one may have no nursery place at all or have little or no choice. We already know that, as a result of the introduction of the voucher in phase 1, more places will be available in those four local education authorities—and what we have seen in those four local education authorities, we shall see across the country from April 1997.

Grant-maintained Schools

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to visit Castle Point to discuss the annual maintenance grant for the grant-maintained secondary schools. [20134]

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend accept that grant-maintained schools in Castle Point welcome the proposal in the measure that the House passed last night—that they should be able to borrow money? Does he deplore the Labour party's attitude and view that grant-maintained school governors cannot be trusted to manage their school funds? Does he believe, like me, that the real agenda of the Labour party is to destroy grant-maintained schools and to destroy grammar schools?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend has obviously studied, or perhaps he was present for, last night's debate. It was abundantly clear to anyone who paid attention that the Labour party believes that governors cannot make decisions about what level of borrowing is prudent for grant-maintained schools. The Government are providing governors with that opportunity, within the framework of the Funding Agency for Schools, and they will have to decide what level of borrowing is prudent for their funds and how they can support that borrowing.
The Government believe that governors have that power of responsibility and have the common sense to use it in the interests of their people. As my hon. Friend said, it is abundantly clear that the Labour party believes that only it and bureaucrats have the wisdom to manage other people's money. Wherever the Labour party is in power, in local authorities up and down the country, it is abundantly clear that it has failed miserably to do so.

Selective Education

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many selective schools there are in England. [20135]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: In the 1995 secondary school performance tables, 163 maintained schools classified themselves as wholly or mainly selective.

Mr. Dunn: Given that these schools exist because of the election of the Conservative Government in 1979 and given that we are the only party committed to supporting selective schools and the extension of the selective principle, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how she believes that selective schools could continue to exist if they could not select pupils either by interview or by examination, as is the policy of the socialists opposite?

Mrs. Shephard: Selective schools are popular with parents, as the recent Association of Teachers and Lecturers survey found. That is why we will continue to examine ways of meeting parental preference for selective education and other choices, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who believe that such choice is only for the few. It is difficult to see how they could possibly say that they would meet parental preference for selection, as their policies are being formed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said, "Watch my lips—no selection." He could hardly be more unequivocal than that. He clearly meant that there will be no selection.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Has the right hon. Lady pointed out to the Prime Minister that he cannot extend selective education and continue to pretend that today's Conservative party stands for one nation?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the benefits of choice and diversity in education. By our policies, we are encouraging the development of choice and diversity across the spectrum of school provision. That is why we have grant-maintained schools, local education authority schools, city technology colleges, technology colleges, and so on, all of which we had when the hon. Gentleman supported our policies. Such a choice and such a spectrum benefit all parents, not just one or two on the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Colchester Royal grammar school and Colchester high school for girls are two of the finest grammar schools in the country? The socialists currently in control of Essex county council want to do away with grammar schools. If we allowed local education authorities to take back control of schools in Colchester, that would be the end of Colchester's grammar schools.

Mrs. Shephard: It would indeed. That would be a death blow for choice and diversity in Colchester.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Secretary of State will pass on to the Prime Minister the point that if the Government are attempting to build their education policy on the basis of trying to embarrass the Labour party on the issue of selection, they should think again. Will the Secretary of State confirm that excluding a child from a school because of an 11-plus examination denies opportunity and removes choice? Will she confirm that that is why she is against extending the 11-plus and returning to a bygone agenda—a past and dead agenda that was swept aside not only by parents and local councils but by her predecessors? Will she tell the House this afternoon whether she, as Secretary of State, or Norman Blackwell at the policy unit at No. 10 is in charge of Tory party policy?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman needs no help from me in embarrassing himself and his party. What is more, he seems to be obsessed with splits. Our policies promote diversity, choice and opportunity. Diversity is a word only recently learnt by the hon. Gentleman. He has learnt the word, but he has not transmitted the skill into the creation of policies. We are, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is saying elsewhere today, currently considering how to increase the rich variety in the schools system that we have created with more selective schools. The Opposition support choice, diversity and selection for a few on their Front Bench. They would deny it to all other parents by their policies. I call that a split.

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people are now educated in grant-maintained schools and grammar schools; and what plans she has to promote selective education. [20136]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Almost 700,000 pupils are now being educated in grant-maintained schools of all types, and about 125,000 in grammar schools across the maintained sector as a whole. We have just completed consultation on extending selection, without the need to publish statutory proposals, from 10 to 15 per cent.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very comprehensive reply. Will she confirm that the survey conducted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers revealed that the majority of parents wish to see selective education? As Labour Members take advantage of selective education—I refer to both the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—does my right hon. Friend agree that that suggests a growing consensus between the Opposition and the Government in that area? Therefore, will she build on that consensus and increase the amount of selective education—particularly in grant-maintained schools—from 15 to 20 per cent?

Mrs. Shephard: As I have said, we have just completed a consultation exercise about extending selection, without the need to publish statutory proposals, from 10 to 15 per cent. Applications from schools and from local education authorities to become selective are always considered seriously within the Department.I agree with my hon. Friend that there seems to be an increasing consensus among some Labour Front Benchers in favour of choice and diversity across the spectrum. It is unfortunate for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that, when he said, "Watch my lips—no selection," his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham was not looking.

Mr. Byers: Does the Secretary of State agree that all parents should be able to choose good schools for their children? If so, will she inform the House how a return to selection would assist in achieving that objective when selection, by its very nature, denies parental choice by putting the power in the hands of individual schools which select a few and condemn the majority to be deemed failures? Will the Secretary of State confirm that last week she told head teachers that she was personally opposed to

a return to the waste of selection at 11? How does she reconcile that position with the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for a rapid expansion of selective education?

Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman straight away that my right hon. Friend and I are absolutely at one in our desire to see a diversity of provision within our school sector, because we both believe that it drives up standards.

Nursery Education (East Sussex)

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about nursery education in East Sussex. [20137]

Mr. Robin Squire: East Sussex county council responded to the Department's two recent consultation documents on the nursery education voucher scheme, but ultimately decided not to take part in phase 1.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, immediately after our right hon. Friend's announcement, I wrote to her asking whether East Sussex could be considered for participation in the pilot scheme? However, as we have heard, the Liberal Democrat chair of education in East Sussex dismissed participation out of hand for purely political reasons. Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received representations from hundreds of parents in my constituency who are angry and disappointed that a whole raft of children will be denied the opportunity to benefit from the vouchers?

Mr. Squire: I fully share my hon. Friend's disappointment at the local education authority's response: it is a great opportunity lost to parents and to children. If East Sussex had taken part, like Norfolk, it might this week be publishing proposals to provide for 25 new classes covering 300 children.

Schools (Repairs)

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to reduce the backlog of repairs in schools. [20139]

Mrs. Gillan: Repair and maintenance of school buildings are the responsibility of local education authorities and individual governing bodies. Planned central Government support for capital work in maintained schools in 1996–97 is nearly £700 million—an increase of 6.7 per cent. on 1995–96.

Mrs. Kennedy: Notwithstanding that increase, does the Minister recognise that capital spending on schools has been halved in real terms in the past 20 years? Is that not an indictment of the Government's policy on school repairs? What hope can the Minister offer to the governors, local education authority officers and the teachers at Ashfield special school in my constituency who are waiting for repairs to take place at the two sites at which they work while trying to deliver education to children who are already disadvantaged? Would they not


be better off applying to the national lottery rather than waiting for the Government to take their problems seriously?

Mrs. Gillan: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. She has taken a convenient bite out of time. A more recent bite out of time shows that, since 1990, more than £5 billion has been spent on county, voluntary-aided and grant-maintained school buildings. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to congratulate the Government on their record for Liverpool LEA, which has just had a very good capital round, with five major projects put on the starts list for 1996–97 and two further projects put on the design list. That will deliver more than £4.5 million over three years from the Government to Liverpool. I would have thought that she would welcome that.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she takes to monitor the performance of individual training and enterprise councils.[20140]

Mr. Paice: The performance of individual training and enterprise councils is monitored regularly by Government regional offices.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I know that the Minister has been to Wakefield on at least one occasion recently. Is he aware of the considerable dissatisfaction with the performance of Wakefield training and enterprise council, which has no relationship with the local authority, hardly any relationship with local schools and no relationship with the district college? How can we ensure that TECs, such as the one in Wakefield, become accountable to the local public? At the present time, they seem to be a law unto themselves.

Mr. Paice: As the hon. Gentleman said, I went to Wakefield in the autumn specifically to address the clear breakdown in the relationship between the TEC and local organisations. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have no direct powers to intervene, but I was anxious to smooth out the problem in whatever way I could. I understand that the relationship between the TEC and the college is now considerably improved, but I do not necessarily claim credit for that. Much work has been done by our regional staff to try to improve the situation. The latest information I have is that it is much better.
I do not know why Wakefield is almost alone among TECs in having a bad relationship with the local community, because across the country matters have worked well after a rocky start. I will keep a close eye on the situation in Wakefield and I hope that it will continue to improve.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On 29 December last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the fact that TECs had sent trainees into circumstances that led to 1,750 of them being injured. On one occasion, a death took place. The Secretary of State was kind enough to reply and she gave me an assurance, with the Health and Safety Executive, that improvements would be made to ensure that there was a reduction in accidents involving trainees.
Today, a letter has been produced by the Health and Safety Executive which suggests that the Department of the Environment and the Department for Education and Employment are involved in cutting that body's resources to the extent that it cannot fulfil its commitments. The reply given to me by the Secretary of State has been thrown away by the Department's plan, in secret with the Department of the Environment, to cut grants to the Health and Safety Executive. That will lead to death and injuries in the workplace. Does the Secretary of State intend to make a statement about the involvement of her Department in managing reductions in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Member is shroud waving and making damaging statements about health and safety on Government training programmes.
On the subject of the resources of the Health and Safety Executive, the hon. Gentleman should address his question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for that matter.
On Government training programmes, TECs are responsible for ensuring that every single placement of a Government-sponsored trainee, be it on a youth training scheme or in training for work, is backed up by a positive health and safety policy. The categorical assurances that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Gentleman in the letter remain in place. We will not have trainees put knowingly into any position of danger.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the proportion of the working age population employed in the United Kingdom; and what are the figures in other EU countries. [20141]

Mr. Forth: In the UK, 68 per cent. of the working age population are in employment. That is the highest percentage of the major European countries and well above the European Union average.

Mr. Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend aware that UK jobs are more secure than the average in the European Union? The number of temporary jobs as a proportion of all employees is 6.5 per cent. in the UK but 10 per cent. in Germany, 11 per cent. in France and a staggering 33.5 per cent. in formerly socialist Spain. If people want job security, should not they vote for our labour market policies instead of for the social chapter?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a telling point that completely gives the lie to the Opposition's argument, spurious as ever, when they harp on about job security. As my hon. Friend said, the number of temporary jobs in this country is small compared with the number that most of our continental partners experience. That tells its own tale and powerfully reinforces the point that job security is much greater in the UK than it is among our partners and competitors on the European mainland.

Mr. Eastham: What value can be put on the Government's employment figures, when we know that they have been massaged 32 times? Government employment figures include as part-time workers even people who work only one hour per week.

Mr. Forth: I am puzzled by the Opposition's obsession with unemployment figures. I assume that most Labour
Members support the International Labour Organisation and that they are prepared to consider the labour force survey on unemployment figures which is produced from time to time. Opposition Members should acknowledge that figures in the labour force survey sponsored by the ILO are close and similar to our own claimant count, which suggests that the claims made by Opposition Members cannot be supported in any way—least of all by the ILO.

BSE (Health)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the latest advice that the Government have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. The House will be aware that the committee, which is chaired by Professor John Pattison, was established in 1990 to bring together leading experts in neurology, epidemiology and microbiology, to provide scientifically based advice on the implications for animal and human health of different forms of spongiform encephalopathy.
The committee provides independent advice to Government. Its members are not Government scientists, but leading practitioners in their field. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice not simply to Government but to the whole community on the scientific questions that arise in its field. The Government have always made it clear that it is our policy to base our decisions on the scientific advice provided by the advisory committee. The committee has today agreed new advice about the implications for animal and human health of the latest scientific evidence. Copies of the committee's advice, together with a statement from the chief medical officer that is based on that advice, have been placed in the Vote Office.
The committee has considered the work being done by the Government surveillance unit in Edinburgh, which specialises in Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. That work, which relates to the 10 cases of CJD that have been identified in people aged under 42, has led the committee to conclude that the unit has identified a previously unrecognised and consistent disease pattern. A review of patients' medical histories, genetic analysis and consideration of other possible causes have failed to explain those cases adequately.
There remains no scientific proof that bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be transmitted to man by beef, but the committee has concluded that the most likely explanation at present is that those cases are linked to exposure to BSE before the introduction of the specified bovine offal ban in 1989. Against the background of that new finding, the committee has today agreed a series of recommendations, which the Government are making public this afternoon.
The committee's recommendations are in two parts. First, it recommends a series of measures to reduce further the risk to human and animal health associated with BSE. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement about those measures that fall within his Department's responsibilities immediately after questions on this statement have been concluded.
In addition, the committee recommended that there should be urgent consideration of what further research is needed in this area, and that the Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens should urgently review their advice. The Government intend to accept all the recommendations of the advisory committee in full; they will be put into effect as soon as possible.
The second group of recommendations from the committee offers advice about food safety, on the assumption that the further measures recommended by

the committee are implemented. On that basis, the committee concluded that the risk from eating beef is now likely to be extremely small and that there is no need for it to revise its advice on the safety of milk.
The chief medical officer will write today to all doctors, to ensure that the latest scientific evidence is drawn to their attention. In the statement by the chief medical officer that I have placed in the Vote Office, Sir Kenneth Calman poses to himself the question whether he will continue to eat beef. I quote his answer:
I will do so as part of a varied and balanced diet. The new measures and effective enforcement of existing measures will continue to ensure that the likely risk of developing CJD is extremely small.
A further question has arisen about the possibility that children are more at risk of contracting CJD. There is at present no evidence for age sensitivity, and the scientific evidence for the risks of developing CJD in those who eat meat in childhood has not changed as a result of the new findings. However, parents will be concerned about the implications for their children, and I have asked the advisory committee to provide specific advice on that issue following its next meeting this weekend.
Any further measures that the committee recommends will be given the most urgent consideration by the Government. As the Government have repeatedly made clear, new scientific evidence will be communicated to the public as soon as it becomes available.

Ms Harriet Harman: I thank the committee for its work. I welcome the two principal new measures that it has proposed, on which the Secretary of State is acting. I also welcome the fact that he has made available to me the advice of the chief medical officer on this important and difficult issue. I appreciate that.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that public confidence on this issue is hanging by a thread? Public confidence must be restored, but the public have to be given the full facts and honest advice on which to base their decisions. That relies on two things. It relies, does it not, on the Secretary of State giving full disclosure of the scientific evidence? I hope that he will publish all that information and give clear advice and guidance.
Is it not the case that the time has passed for false reassurance? There must be no more photo-calls of Ministers feeding beefburgers to their children. The question whether there is a link between BSE and CJD is an issue, is it not, of immense importance to consumers, and particularly for parents of young children. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge, as I do, that it is also of immense importance for hundreds of thousands of people who work in farming and the meat industry? Does he acknowledge that the situation remains uncertain and that it is now apparent that there has been too much reassurance and too little action?
We must all be concerned, must we not, that 10 cases of a new strain of CJD have appeared? Will the Secretary of State confirm that what is worrying about this new cluster is that it has occurred in people under the age of 42, and that all the cases have occurred in the past two years and only in the United Kingdom? The conclusion that stares the British public in the face is that there may well be a link between BSE and CJD.
The public have a right to know that there has been a comprehensive consideration of all the options. Will the Secretary of State tell the House the most radical option


that SEAC considered? In addition to knowing what the Secretary of State was advised had been considered and acted on, the House needs to know what the committee considered and what it ruled out, to be reassured that all the options were considered.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is not saying that there is no risk? Will he confirm that we are dealing not with absolute risks but with relative risks, and that the aim is to achieve the difficult feat of balancing the interests of the economy and the meat industry with those of health?
Is it not the case that, unfortunately and, I am sure, inadvertently, the House has been given yet more false reassurance? The Secretary of State said that Sir Kenneth Calman, the chief medical officer, would continue to eat beef as part of his balanced diet; but he should tell the House whether Sir Kenneth would be prepared to feed beef to his young grandchildren. It is not just a question of the safety of beef for adults; it is a question of the safety of beef for children. Will the Secretary of State confirm that SEAC members who are parents or grandparents are not giving beef to their children or grandchildren?
The right hon. Gentleman must take the public into his confidence. He must recognise that he must lead public opinion, so the public must not be left in the dark. Public concern is so great that Ministers have a duty to be entirely open about the considerations that are involved. If the facts are not fully disclosed, the public response will be fear, which will then be stoked up by ignorance and innuendo. [Interruption.] I appreciate that the position is difficult and the information uncertain, but it is clear that the Secretary of State has lost the confidence of the British people. While he was advising people that it was okay to eat beef, local education authorities throughout the country were withdrawing it from school meals. We need to restore public confidence in the advice of the Department of Health. If we are to do that, people must know that the Government are doing all that they can, that they will publish all SEAC's deliberations and that enough resources will be devoted to future research.

Mr. Dorrell: I thank the hon. Lady for pointing out that I had made the chief medical officer's advice available to her. I also thank her for welcoming the action that the Government are taking today, which corresponds precisely with the advice given by the scientific committee.
The hon. Lady said that it was important for Government actions and public information on these sensitive issues to be based four square on the facts, not on the reassurances of those without the scientific qualifications on which to base such reassurances. I entirely agree with that. It is essential that we rest our case firmly on the considered advice of the specialists in the advisory committee, who understand scientific connections which are often discussed but which very few of us are qualified to understand.
I believe that the hon. Lady's description of the cases that have led to the advisory committee's further revision of its advice is broadly correct. She asked whether the committee was free to consider all options in making recommendations to the Government. It was indeed free to consider any recommendations that it chose, and it considered a wide range of recommendations. The key

point for the House and the public to note is that the committee's recommendations are the result of considered deliberation by experts, and have been accepted by the Government.
In that connection, I shall deal directly with the question that the hon. Lady asked about children. The committee has not given us a specific recommendation about children. That is why I have asked it to do so at its next meeting. The evidence has become available only in the past few weeks, and it is important that there is proper consideration of all the different elements of that evidence. The specific question of children will be considered by the committee this weekend, and a specific conclusion will be reached and published.
The final question that the hon. Lady asked was whether the facts on which the committee based its deliberations would be made public. The answer is yes, as soon as proper arrangements can be made for their publication in scientific journals.

Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are deeply shocked by the tone and implication of what the Labour spokeswoman said? I urge him to continue not to overreact over this whole business and to base his decisions, as he said, on the latest scientific information. We have often discovered in the House that the rumour is different from the reality. Such health scares and food scares have occurred before. Will he bear it in mind that there is a big industry out there—the British beef industry—which will be listening extremely carefully to what he says?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes his own point about other comments in his own way. This afternoon, it is not appropriate for me to comment on that.
This key issue involves safety of food and legitimate economic interests. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is just as important for us not to overreact as it is for us not to underreact. The actions that we take must be based four square on an honest assessment of the latest science. That is the Government's position and will continue to be so.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I share the Secretary of State's view that the worst thing that we could do would be to overreact. Therefore, I ask him about two specific things. First, the reports make it clear—I have had the advantage, for which I am grateful, of reading the other two reports—that six other pieces of work are needed and are in hand. Two will be undertaken by the advisory committee, to assess what further research is needed. The Secretary of State referred to another, where he has asked the committee to give specific advice in relation to children. Further advice is also sought from the Health and Safety Executive and the other advisory committee.
Will all that advice be given with the greatest urgency, because the greatest concern for people out there is what to do between today's announcement, which I accept had to be made quickly, and the remaining announcements, which will, as it were, see through this afternoon's announcement? Has there been independent advice from the Medical Research Council? If so, will the Secretary of State publish it?
Secondly, and perhaps most practically, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the public authorities and, especially, hospitals and local education authorities


should do, because, otherwise, they will have to use their discretion? Such advice would be helpful. Schools and hospitals need to know whether, pending further advice, they should continue to have beef and beef products on their menus for people who would eat them.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman referred to one or two further actions that the committee recommended and that I have assured hon. Members will be taken. He referred first to research. I have authorised an additional £4.5 million of expenditure out of the national health service research budget for this sector. The Medical Research Council budget is also available. Both the council and the NHS research and development division will urgently consider the next steps that are necessary following the committee's recommendations.
My statement makes it clear that the same is true of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens and the Health and Safety Executive. All those involved have issues to consider in their fields of expertise. Following the committee's recommendations, all are asked to do so urgently and they all will.
As regards the action that people should take as a consequence of the recommendations, the right thing for any decision maker to do in the light of the findings is to act on the recommendations of the committee and of the chief medical officer. I have made it clear that neither of them is recommending a change of action from current practice in terms of food safety as a result of the findings. I have already answered directly the question on children by saying that specific advice on that subject is being sought from SEAC this weekend.

Sir John Cope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is quite right to publish the scientific advice that he has received and to act exactly on that advice, as the Government have always done? But can he also confirm, as I think he said in his statement, that the 10 new cases that have caused the immediate concern are all thought to have been infected before the 1989 precautions involving offal, and so on, were taken? That should be a considerable reassurance to the public, in avoiding the sort of overreaction about which we are concerned.

Mr. Dorrell: Yes, my right hon. Friend is right. I am grateful to him for his support on our approach. In terms of the likely pathological background to the 10 cases that are the basis of the revised advice, it would be a mistake for me to paraphrase the experts' advice. It is, as I quoted it in my statement, that the most likely explanation is that the cases may be linked to exposure before the specified bovine offal ban in 1989. But the statement and the chief medical officer make it clear that there is no scientific proof of that connection.

Mr. Barry Jones: In welcoming the Secretary of State's presence in the House and that of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in welcoming the measures that he has announced, may I tell him of the distressing case of Victoria Rimmer, now aged 18, who has lain seriously ill in Deeside community hospital for some three years? May I also tell him of the superb nursing skills practised in that hospital and the

splendid work of the team led by Mrs. Megan Jolly? The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that Victoria's former schoolfriends continue to come to the hospital, as do members of staff.
In an answer on this matter dated 3 February 1994, the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), said:
Beef can be safely eaten by anyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital.—[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 867.]
Does that advice still stand?

Mr. Dorrell: I, and I am sure the whole House, join the hon. Gentleman in expressing sympathy to Victoria in her condition and in expressing our admiration both for the care that she has received from NHS staff and for the support that she will have received from the people in her own community. There is no doubt that the condition that we are talking about is extremely distressing and it is therefore essential that proper steps are taken to ensure that the risk of it being incurred is minimised.
In terms of advice as to how people should act, I give the hon. Gentleman the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—the science does not justify a change in current practice. That is the advice that I have been given. I am not a scientist. It would be a great mistake for me or any other non-scientist to seek to second-guess the scientific advice that has been given to the Government and—this is the important point—through the Government to the nation.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the political courage to come to the House and make this statement this afternoon as soon as the new evidence was available. I also applaud him on behalf of all on the Conservative Benches for having the moral courage to stick to his last in saying that the Government will always support the latest scientific evidence available. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House that the risks of contracting CJD from whatever source are infinitesimal?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He is of course right to say that the risks associated with this condition are extremely low, which is made clear in the scientific advice that I have received and have made available this afternoon.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Was not the previous scientific advice categorical that there was no possibility of BSE entering the human food chain? In the light of the possibility that the disease takes 10 years to incubate, should not stronger advice be given—certainly to schools and parents—on the possible effects and dangers of feeding beef to small children?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady raises two questions. The answer to her first question, on whether the previous advice was specific that it was inconceivable that there would be a link between BSE and the condition being transmissible to humans, is no. The advice that we have received all the way through has been that there is no proof, no evidence, of a link. But it was precisely to safeguard against the possibility that there might be a link that the various controls were introduced, the most recent


tightening of which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the autumn.
It has always been recognised that there was a possibility of a link and, in the past few weeks, the committee has been considering new evidence around the existence of that possibility. It has considered that evidence and, on the basis of scientific expertise, has drawn conclusions on the controls that are necessary to provide proper safeguards to both animal and human health.
It is precisely because I understand the sensitivity of the advice that SEAC gives specifically on children, and by extension to schools—I am a parent of two young children—that I have sought specific advice. It will be available this weekend.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend tell me why the impression is continually given that the problem seems to affect only British beef? In many conversations that I have had with people in the agricultural industry, I have been told that they regularly see symptoms of the disease in herds in France and other countries. Why does Britain always play by the rules? Just what are other EC countries doing to take products off the market if there is a problem? Such action certainly does not seem to be taking place in other meat industries throughout the EC to the extent that it is in Britain.

Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that we recognise the condition in its wider international context. We must take proper account of the incidence of various different diseases and their possible interrelationships in other countries. One of the benefits of publishing the advice, as I have done this afternoon, is that it will invite evidence from overseas and allow a better understanding of the scientific evidence with which we are dealing. I believe that this is a British House of Commons and that it is responsible to the British electorate for the safety of what goes on in Britain. I do not therefore think that it is sensible for us to try to look for elaborate linkages. We have received urgent advice and we are acting urgently in what we believe to be the British national interest.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware of the sad case of my constituent, the late Mr. Neville Price, who died a few months ago of CJD. He was a farmer, but I understand that there was no proven link to BSE. Against that background, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that all the scientific research being undertaken has been taken into account in the report that he published today, particularly that conducted on trans-species barriers in mice, which was being investigated and appeared to be showing a way forward? Will he also give an assurance that if the research undertaken requires much greater resources to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, the Government will make them immediately available?

Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the second question is yes. It is an urgent issue. I have already given the House the information on the further resources available in my departmental budget. We are acting urgently to ensure that the other agencies that are responsible for developing research act promptly. I can tell the House that a meeting has been fixed for April, to consider proposals on how

that research programme will be taken forward. It is important that that recommendation by SEAC is acted on, and acted on promptly.
I can confirm that SEAC reached its recommendations by analysing the science from all the different spheres, and that that science will be brought together in a published paper, to allow others from the scientific community to see the evidence on which SEAC reached its conclusions and to form their own judgments about SEAC's conclusions.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the measured way in which he delivered his statement and for having immediately brought this urgent advice to the House's attention? The advice is manifestly of importance to every family in the land, so I welcome the further action on children. It is also of crucial importance to the entire agricultural industry. Beef is a very important industry in every village and rural area in the land, and it is most important that no one should stir up unnecessary panic where panic is not required.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. I cannot stress too strongly to the House my view that the right way in which to deal with the issue is to ask where the scientific evidence lies and then to act on that evidence. My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right to say that there are major and legitimate economic interests—which, if I may de-jargonise it, means jobs—associated with those industries. It is obviously essential that those interests are taken into account in our consideration of the issues. Having said that, I believe that the pre-eminent consideration must be our responsibility for human health, and that order of priorities has been reflected in the advisory committee and in the Government's position.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Given the Government's gradual realisation that we could be facing a potentially horrific health problem in future years, will they now abandon their policy on this issue of shooting the messenger, and take much more seriously the warnings that we have had for a long time from certain British scientists? Is it true that the Government knew three years ago of the strong possibility of a link with human health? It is absolutely essential that we send a message to the public and assure them that the Government take the issue seriously. People believe that the Government have disregarded the issue simply because they are more concerned with the interests of farmers and the meat trade than with the health of the nation.

Mr. Dorrell: I have just answered that question, in the sense that I made it clear that there is a legitimate interest on the part of those who work in those industries, but that the pre-eminent consideration, of course, must be human health and the health of those who consume British-produced food. There is no argument about that. I do not believe that the characterisation of the Government's record in this sphere as shooting the messenger is in any sense true.
We have set up a committee of leading experts. As I stressed, its members are not Government scientists and they are not placemen—they are distinguished practitioners in their fields. They have given us the benefit of their advice, and, right the way through, we have acted


on it. It is not entirely surprising that advice about a condition that is new has changed as understanding of the condition has developed. That is why I ended my statement by saying that if further advice and recommendations came from those scientifically qualified people, the Government would react to that and ensure that it was brought immediately to public attention.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must keep these matters in perspective? Will he confirm that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has even less chance of contracting CJD from eating beef than she has of being re-elected to the shadow Cabinet in the next election? Will he also confirm that we have not forgotten the lesson of the salmonella in eggs fiasco some years ago, when an incautious word from a Minister devastated an industry for no proven benefit to the health of the nation—a lesson that has obviously been lost on Labour Front Benchers? Although the Leader of the Opposition yesterday posed as the friend of small businesses, the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that depend on the sale of beef cattle will have been undermined by the hon. Lady's words today. Therefore, the true friend of farmers and small business men is the Conservative party.

Mr. Dorrell: I have already said that, although it is tempting to speculate about the shadow Cabinet election chances of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), this is not the time or place for it. I agree about the importance of neither underreacting nor overreacting to the issue. We must listen calmly to the advice that we have been given and reach measured judgments on the basis of that advice. That is what the Government have done.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. If he had not come forward now, he would have been charged with covering up. As a grandparent, and with one daughter who is a doctor and another who is a science teacher, I know that we need a balanced diet. The CMO's advice is accurate in that context. However, I want to press the Secretary of State. In Northern Ireland, we have had several incidents of CJD, but there has been no evidence of the beef trade being affected, although there has been an impact in other areas. Does the available scientific evidence relate only to beef cattle, or is wider experimentation being undertaken to discover whether there are other sources of infection?

Mr. Dorrell: I am not aware of further experimentation. The evidence is being assessed, especially in respect of the 10 cases to which I referred. I agree very much about the need to ensure that we maintain a measured response. It is clearly essential to good health to maintain a balanced diet. There are few human activities that are entirely free of risk. It is incumbent on policy makers to ensure that the risk associated with a wide range of activities, including eating, is kept to a reasonable minimum.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is not it the case that most consumers will regard this not as a party political but as a scientific issue? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have at all times

acted with the best available scientific advice? The worrying thing is that consumers will not understand the scientific issues. They will simply vote with their purses and move away from beef products altogether. That will have a devastating impact on the beef industry, whatever assurances my right hon. Friend seeks to give. What steps will be taken to help the beef industry to move into a situation where it can give a cast-iron assurance to the British public that no British beef has BSE?

Mr. Dorrell: I have already told the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement in a few minutes that will deal with the specific measures that affect agriculture. I agree wholeheartedly that this is not a time for a lay Minister to offer an opinion. I offer no opinion about the science. [Interruption.] With great respect to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I do not believe that his constituents or mine are interested in his or my views about the science. We are interested in what scientific risk is associated with the products. We have sought expert advice on that and acted upon it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister realise that he is a member of the Government? He is supposed to make a judgment. They all make judgments about something or other. The present Secretary of State for the Environment made a judgment a few years ago. I did not agree with him when he was stuffing hamburgers down that little kid's throat, but that was a judgment. The chief medical officer has made a judgment. He has said that he is prepared to die for his Government—the first civil servant ever to say that. What is the Secretary of State prepared to do? If they are prepared to make judgments, surely the Government should tell the British public the facts.

Mr. Dorrell: I will tell the House the judgment that I make in this case. When I am asked whether a product is safe, I think that the answer to that question is scientific, not political. That is well beyond the scope of politics and I hope that the great majority of hon. Members, if not the hon. Gentleman, agree with that.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: In order that people should have confidence in the future, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether anyone at any time has seriously put into doubt the competence or expertise of SEAC? Has the Department of Health at any time received recommendations from SEAC that it has not acted upon? How quickly has the Department of Health acted on the recommendations that it has received from SEAC?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those three questions. First, I am not aware of anyone having impugned the competence of the members of SEAC. Whenever I have been asked questions about SEAC, I have always said that if people have scientific evidence which they do not believe that SEAC has considered or to which they do not believe SEAC has attributed proper weight, they should take the matter up with SEAC. The chairman of SEAC has made it abundantly clear that he regards that as an important part of the functions of his job.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asks whether there are any recommendations, based on science, that SEAC has offered the Government, on which they have not acted. The answer to that question is no. Thirdly, my hon. Friend asks how quickly the Government have acted on SEAC's recommendations. I cannot offer an answer that covers every case, but I can tell the House that the most recent series of recommendations received from SEAC arrived at a meeting of the Cabinet at 10.30 this morning. I do not see how we could have acted any more quickly.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Secretary of State now tell us what was the most radical option to deal with the problem that SEAC considered?

Mr. Dorrell: I have already told the House that SEAC had available to it any option that it chose to recommend—any option. It went through a series of options and it made recommendations. The recommendations are as I set out in my statement. SEAC has given its scientific opinion that, provided that the recommendations are carried through—the Government have undertaken that they will be—there is minimal risk associated with the continued consumption of beef products. That is the key recommendation for those who are interested in future food safety in Britain and in the future economic interests of the food industry in Britain.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will welcome the research that he has announced into the impact of the BSE problem on children? Has he any plans, however, to ask for research into the possible impact on older people?

Mr. Dorrell: I have not asked for specific advice on older people because, it is fair to say, more interest has been concentrated on whether there is age sensitivity in the transmissibility of the condition. That is why I have asked the specific question related to children. The generality of advice is as set out in the statement received from the advisory committee.

Mr. George Mudie: The Secretary of State has sensibly asked the committee to look again at the implications for children. Genuine doubts prompted him to ask the committee that question. Would it not be wiser to err on the side of safety in respect of advice to parents on their children's diet until the committee has specifically answered his question?

Mr. Dorrell: On that question, as on all others, we do better to rest on the advice of those who understand the science better than I do and, I venture to suggest, better than almost all hon. Members do. The advice of the chief medical officer, based as it is on the advice of the advisory committee on this specific subject, is set out in the statement that I have put in the Vote Office. I shall read it to the House:
There is at present no evidence for age sensitivity and the scientific evidence for the risks of developing CJD in those eating meat in childhood has not changed as a result of these new findings. However, parents will be concerned about implications for their children. SEAC has been asked to provide specific advice on this issue.
In addition, as I have told the House, SEAC is meeting specifically to discuss the question this weekend.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that children need a healthy and

balanced diet, which includes meat? Will he take this opportunity, once again, to reassure parents about British meat? Will he also condemn the extreme vegetarian, anti-farming activists, such as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who are now campaigning to stop children eating meat?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that children, like all adults, benefit from a balanced diet, and for the great majority of us that includes meat eating. There are those who choose not to eat meat. I would not seek, as a Health Minister, to give them advice on that issue. If people want to know how to eat healthily, I would simply emphasise the importance of a balanced and varied diet.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not it unfortunate that the Department of Health has a rather poor record on supplying information about CJD? This country's record regarding the problems that resulted from hormone provision in connection with growth and fertility treatment is abysmal compared with that of Australia. There is now an opportunity to improve the record and ensure that full information is made available. To start with, one of the options is to publish all the options that were considered by SEAC.

Mr. Dorrell: I have already undertaken to the House that all the scientific evidence on which SEAC reached its conclusions will be made available in published papers through scientific journals. That is the key obligation, which rests on proper and mature consideration of those issues.
SEAC has no confines in the options that it is allowed to consider. It did indeed consider the full range of options that might have been applied, and it reached a decision about the recommendations that it should make. It has offered those recommendations to the House and, more important, to the country.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister join me and many others in expressing gratitude to the scientists and food journalists, such as Derek Cooper of "The Food Programme", who have been warning of the possible—always the possible—transmission into the human food chain since 1985? Is he not rewriting history just a little bit when he claims that the Government's message has always been that there might be a connection? What was the purpose of those idiotic photo-opportunities if not to say that there was not a connection? It certainly was not to say that there might be a connection.

Mr. Dorrell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Government have introduced a series of controls, which would not have been necessary if the Government had believed that there was no possible connection. It was always acknowledged that a connection could exist, although there was no scientific basis for believing that it did exist. As there was a possibility that it could exist, controls were introduced, which ensured that those parts of the carcase that contained the infective agents did not get into the human food chain. That is the purpose of the controls that were introduced.

BSE (Agriculture)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, Madam Speaker, I too would like to make a statement about BSE. In view of the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health just made, the House will wish to know the action that I propose to take to ensure that the risk to the public is minimised.
The additional recommendations just made by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee that most immediately affect agriculture departments are that carcases from cattle aged over 30 months must be deboned in specially licensed plants supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service and that trimmings be kept out of any food chain; and that the use of mammalian meat and bonemeal in feed for all farm animals be banned.
The committee goes on to state that if these and its other recommendations are carried out, the risk from eating beef is now likely to be extremely small.
The Government have accepted these recommendations, and I will put them into effect as soon as possible. Any further measures that SEAC may recommend will be given the most urgent consideration. Also, and with immediate effect, I have instructed that existing controls in slaughterhouses and other meat plants and in feed mills should be even more vigorously enforced.
I do not believe that this information should damage consumer confidence and thus the beef market. But I should say that support mechanisms exist in the common agricultural policy and the Government will monitor the position closely. I will naturally report developments to the House.
I recognise that there will be public concern, but the Government's chief medical officer advises us that there is no scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted to man by beef. In fact, he has stated that he will continue to eat beef as part of a varied and balanced diet—a as, indeed, shall I. In view of what I have announced, the Government believe that British beef can be eaten with confidence.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister make all the new information, including all the scientific evidence, available to the House of Commons? We must have complete openness on this issue. Today, we have to learn the important lesson that we must not allow the BSE agent to get into our food. Clearly, it is crucial that animals that display the symptoms of BSE are not slaughtered for food. Is the Minister satisfied with the controls in that regard?
Some animals do not display any symptoms, but they carry the BSE agent. With respect to those animals, what progress is being made on the development of a live test? Can we have an assurance that adequate resources are being made available for this research and all other aspects of research in relation to the food and agricultural implications of BSE and CJD?
The Minister announced a number of measures this afternoon, including deboning the carcases of all beef animals over the age of 30 months. As younger animals have BSE, why has the Minister chosen to debone only

the carcases of cattle over the age of 30 months? Last summer, the Minister had to acknowledge that the controls that were in place in our slaughterhouses were not being adequately enforced. What confidence does he have that the new measures and the existing measures will be effectively enforced? Can we be assured that he will assist the Meat Hygiene Service and the State Veterinary Service in the implementation of these vital objectives?
The Minister's announcements have important implications for the agricultural and meat industries. What measures is he considering to cushion the blow to these industries? Finally, I listened carefully to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Health and to the last part of the Minister's statement. As the Minister responsible for our food, what advice is he giving to people about whether they, their children and their grandchildren should be eating beef and beef products?

Mr. Hogg: Of course, we must be open—and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have come promptly to the House. We learnt of the considered conclusions over the weekend, the recommendations were made earlier this morning and we came here very swiftly. In relation to publication, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that we will be publishing the material in the scientific journals.
With respect to BSE agents getting into the food chain, that is precisely why I put the additional controls in place and why that has been done in the past. There will not be a live test in the foreseeable future—I wish that there were. On the question of adequate research as funded by my Department, I have discussed this with Professor Pattison—the chairman of SEAC—and he is satisfied with the level of MAFF support for research.
On the question of the 30-month cut-off point, that is indeed the recommendation of SEAC. We stand by that recommendation and SEAC had good reasons for making it. On the question of market confidence, in view of what SEAC and the chief medical officer said, I do not believe that there should be a loss of confidence in beef and, as a consequence, no damage to the market.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government on the speed with which the two statements have been made following the SEAC recommendation? Does he agree that the comments from the Labour party, both new and old, demonstrate that Labour is certainly not the farmer's friend? Does he accept that the deboning of carcases over 30 months old will hit the dairy industry in particular, as it is normally dairy cows that are slaughtered beyond the 30-month period? Has he considered the impact of that on the price that will be paid for those redundant cows and what help can he offer the dairy industry in particular on the impact of that?

Mr. Hogg: On the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, I shall practise the same self-denying ordinance as my right hon. Friend. On the question of dairy cows, my right hon. Friend is correct in saying that frequently dairy cows over the age of 30 months are processed for beef. However, he will also have noticed that we are not prohibiting the use of dairy cows over the age


of 30 months for beef, but merely stipulating that they must be sold in a deboned state—the deboning taking place in plants licensed by the Ministry.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I remind the Minister that in a debate in the House on 13 July last year I specifically asked his colleague, the Minister for Food, whether she was satisfied with the integrity of the scientific advice on which the Government were operating? Will he be more specific this afternoon than the hon. Lady was then in answer to two specific questions? First, I noticed that his statement refers to the risk from eating beef as being extremely small. By contrast, the chief medical officer refers to bovine products. Can the Minister distinguish between the two and what advice is given in each case? Secondly, I noticed his reference to support mechanisms. Is he prepared to assure the House, the country and the industry that he and his Ministry take full responsibility for the consequences of their previous advice, including the financial implications?

Mr. Hogg: I have great confidence in the integrity of the scientific advice that we have received. I have confidence in it now and I have always had confidence in it. It merits our confidence. As for what the chief medical officer said with regard to beef products, I adopt and repeat it.

Mr. John Greenway: Is not the gist of what we have been told this afternoon that there is no less reason to have confidence in British beef today or tomorrow than there was yesterday? I regret, however, that that is not how the great British press will see it. There is likely to be a calamitous effect on British beef farmers, many of whom have never had a single BSE-affected cow in their herds. Will my right hon. and learned Friend, therefore, reassure the House this afternoon so that we can reassure our farmers tomorrow and this weekend that he will not hesitate to move swiftly to support the market?

Mr. Hogg: The market will fall only if there is a serious lack of confidence in beef. That depends upon the judgment that the public make about the quality and safety of British beef and beef products. That is why my right hon. Friend and I have come promptly to the House to make the two statements that we have made and to tell the House that the best opinion that we have is that beef and beef products can be eaten with confidence. If the public accept that advice, there will be no damage to the market, but, as I made plain in my statement, there are mechanisms within the common agricultural policy that can be brought into play if there is damage.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister seen a transcript of an interview that the chief veterinary officer, Mr. Keith Meldrum, gave on the "World in Action" programme last November in which he stated that it is possible that as many as 500 animals with BSE may be entering the food chain every week, albeit subject to the removal of specified offal? He said also that tissue other than the specified offal may contain "a low level"—that is a direct quote; I checked the tapes today—of BSE.
We know from interviews conducted during the "World in Action" piece and from footage filmed by secret cameras that animals that were cleared by inspectors at auction markets in Mold and at Beeston in Cheshire were purchased by Granada Television—at its expense—tested by official veterinary officers, and found to contain BSE. We know, on the basis of what we saw and according to the interview transcripts, that the system is not working. How can we sure that the current arrangements will be tightened to work effectively when we have been told repeatedly over the years that the present system is policed properly?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is not fixing on the critical point. I do not dispute the fact that a number of cattle with sub-clinical BSE conditions have got into the slaughterhouse—that is precisely why the SBO controls are in place. If those controls are carried out thoroughly, they will remove the organs that contain the infected material. For that and other reasons, I believe that the British people can consume beef with confidence.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that human beings indulge in very few risk-free activities and that that is true of what we eat? It is in the interests of our very good agricultural industry that we disseminate the message that the measures that are being put in place have the same effect as control measures in other areas. For example, buses, trains and aircraft crash, but we have introduced measures to control the transport industry in order to promote public confidence. That is what the Government are doing today.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend has given to the Government's proposals, which are based on the recommendations of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and the chief medical officer. It is true that few activities are wholly safe. However, according to the advice that we have received and in light of today's announcement, British beef may be eaten with confidence.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister recall that, in answering a question from me in November, he said that although 160,000 cattle were found to be infected with BSE only 23 could be broadly classed as beef animals? Does that mean that BSE is largely a disease of the milk herd? If that is so, will the Minister follow up the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked in a previous exchange and consider the possibility of a test? Will he examine also the effects of scrapie on the disease, as I believe that there has been one trans-species jump already?
When considering the question of beef imports into the United Kingdom, will the Minister examine closely the cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Beef comes both from Northern Ireland through the Republic and from the Republic through Northern Ireland and into the United Kingdom market. If the situation worsens, what steps will the Government take to eliminate the disease once and for all—bearing in mind the fact that that cannot be done cheaply?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk of 160,000 or so confirmed cases and he is also right to say that the great majority of cases are found in the dairy industry, not in beef herds, although there are some cases in beef herds. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there is any probability of a live test becoming available. I regret that there is not in the near future. I wish that there was, but there is not and I must not hold out any prospect of one.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the relationship of scrapie to the condition of BSE. One of the explanations advanced as to the cause of BSE is scrapie, which is a condition in sheep, being fed into the cattle population in the feed rations. The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about the elimination of BSE from the herd. That is precisely why SEAC has recommended that we should no longer feed, to any farm animals, rations with any mammalian content against the possibility that there is cross-contamination, for example, between pigs and poultry and cattle, either on the farm or in the feed mills.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, since 1989 when the offal controls were introduced—I welcome the strengthening of those controls today—the risk to the general public has been virtually nil? Does he further agree that MAFF, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office have acted extremely quickly whenever the scientific advice has required them to do so? Will my right hon. and learned Friend watch the market price very closely, because I fear that there will be a substantial drop in the immediate future?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has a great knowledge of these matters from his time in Government and otherwise. He is correct that the risk is extremely small and that has now been stated on several occasions. We have always followed the scientific advice and we shall continue to do so. We will indeed watch the market price with care, as I said in my statement.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: My constituent, Mr. Leonard Franklin, who was an abattoir worker, died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease three weeks ago. His bereaved partner believes that his work at the abattoir contributed to that. He used to come home with blood on his clothes and cuts on his body, and she feels that there may have been a link. She specifically asked me to ensure that an independent pathologist was present at the post-mortem, because she did not trust that the Government-appointed pathologist would be independent. Does the Minister accept that that shows the degree of scepticism in the public about the Government's action in response to BSE?
Given that yet more butchery operations will be required in abattoirs to remove the risk of infected material entering the food chain, will the Minister say whether additional protection will be provided for abattoir workers, who work with the riskiest parts of carcases?
On a separate point, will the Minister clarify what he said a moment ago? I believed that in his statement he said that livestock feeds made from mammals would be

entirely banned. He said later that livestock feeds made from poultry would also be banned. Was that his intention because poultry, obviously, are not mammals?

Mr. Hogg: The case of Mr. Franklin must have caused great distress to the hon. Gentleman and to Mr. Franklin's family. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already dealt with the point about working practices and the Health and Safety Executive will consider whether any changes in working practices need to be made.
I hope that the public will not be in any way sceptical. The Government have always come to the House with information, in one way or another, as promptly as needs be. SEAC is a wholly independent, free-standing and respected body. It deserves the confidence of the country, which I hope that it will receive.
I am sorry if I have confused the hon. Gentleman. Let me restate the position on feeds. Cattle rations should not contain any material from ruminant animals. That is not true in respect of pig and poultry rations, which could contain mammalian elements. To avoid the danger of cross-contamination in feed mills or on the farm, in implementing the SEAC recommendations I am proposing to prohibit the presence of mammalian elements in food rations for all farm animals.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for coming again promptly to the Dispatch Box in acting on scientific advice, although it is unfortunate that he has had to do so. Can he assure the House that scientific advice, once presented, has never been altered or amended by the Government? Have we ever asked the scientists to alter or amend their advice, once it has been presented? Have recommendations always been acted upon and published?

Mr. Hogg: I particularly value my hon. Friend's support, partly because of his professional experience outside the House and because he was a Minister in my Department. He knows a great deal about the subject. My hon. Friend is entirely right—we have always acted on the advisory committee's advice, and we have never tried to shape that advice. The committee is a freestanding and authoritative body and we listen to what it says. We have always carried out its recommendations.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: As to support mechanisms, what proposals does the Minister have for the quality end of the beef market, which is BSE-free, if it is faced with general market instability? The Government's handling of the situation has led to the worst of all possible worlds for farmers and consumers. Only the utmost accountability and openness will allow the public to get to the truth of the matter. As the Member of Parliament who represents the Angus part of Aberdeen Angus, I ask the Minister to ensure that consumers know that Scottish quality beef is something in which everybody can have confidence.

Mr. Hogg: I have a feeling that I was eating Angus beef last night, in the House of Commons restaurant. It was extremely good, and I ate it with total confidence. We have to make a judgment, and I hope that the public will accept the judgments of SEAC and the chief medical officer that British beef can be eaten with confidence.
If the public do so, there will be no disquiet in the markets and they will not be damaged. I hope that the public will take the view that my right hon. Friend and I are offering the House.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that British beef producers are a highly responsible body? Will he consider taking measures through certification or labelling to demonstrate in shops that beef has been properly treated, on the principles that he outlined today?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the responsibility shown by beef producers. Certification is an important point, but I am not entirely certain at the moment whether it is one for the Government or the industry. That matter should certainly be considered by MAFF or the industry, or by those who act on its behalf.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister coming to the House today to make their statements. It is right and proper that they did so promptly. We hope that not just cattle herds but breeds such as highland cattle and the famous Luing cattle are free from BSE. There is no record of BSE in the highlands and islands among those particular breeds over the past five years, which is a great endorsement of beef cattle in the area. The latest scientific advice is bound to have a knock-on effect on breeders, particularly in severely disadvantaged and less-favoured areas. I ask the Minister to consider how he can help those breeders. Will he restore hill livestock compensatory allowances to their 1992 levels?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's kind words. What she said about the breeds from the highlands and islands is very important, and I broadly endorse it. It gives breeders a great marketing advantage, because they are able to sell their beef as having come from herds that have not suffered a case of BSE. I should have thought that that would put them in a premium position.

Mr. Douglas French: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the slaughterhouse rules were originally put in place precisely because he and his predecessors accepted that there might conceivably be a link, however remote, between BSE and CJD? The slaughterhouse rules were strengthened once, and he strengthened them again this afternoon, but will he recognise that it is one thing to put in place a set of rules and another to achieve a high degree of enforcement? The House will be grateful this afternoon that he has emphasised that he will introduce measures to ensure a high degree of enforcement, but will he reassure the House by spelling out in greater detail what those measures will be?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The controls have indeed been strengthened on a substantial number of occasions, and much, of course, depends on their implementation. We will do our outmost to ensure that they are fully implemented, which is why, on more than one occasion at the end of last year, I called in the slaughterhouse operators. It was also one of the reasons why SEAC suggested that cattle over the age of 30 months should be sold only in a deboned state,

the deboning taking place in premises that are licensed and approved. That is intended to provide additional reassurance against the risk of the other SBO controls not being fully implemented.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is it true that SEAC considered but ruled out the destruction of the national herd? If it even considered that option, does not that show what a mess the Minister's predecessors made of dealing with this problem?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already dealt with that question. SEAC had a whole range of possibilities open to it. It could have made any recommendation that it thought fit and right.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As I represent Macclesfield in Cheshire, where dairying and beef are of great importance to the rural economy, I congratulate the Government on coming to the House with such responsible expedition this afternoon and on the very constructive decisions that my right hon. Friend has taken.
I eat beef, as does my wife, my two sons, my daughter and our six grandsons. We enjoy it and will continue to do so. Has my right hon. and learned Friend any idea of the additional cost of the proposals and announcements that he has made this afternoon, particularly with reference to the slaughterhouse and abattoir operators? I have a very efficient and modern abattoir in my constituency. It is important that the additional costs are known to the House. Can he give us any information?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Representing the seat that he does, he knows a great deal about both the dairy industry and the beef industry, and therefore his support is particularly welcome. He is, of course, right to say that there will be an additional cost to the abattoirs and, indeed, elsewhere, largely because of the requirement that cattle over 30 months must be deboned before they can be sold, and that it must take place in licensed and approved premises. There clearly is an additional on-cost there, but I cannot quantify it today, not least because, as my hon. Friend knows, we received the recommendation only earlier this morning and I have not yet had a chance to look at the quantifications.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: On that last point, will the Minister undertake to quantify the additional costs that might be imposed, and in particular their effect on small and medium-sized abattoirs, which are currently under considerable pressure as a result of the requirement for pre-mortem inspections to be carried out by vets, and other costs that impose a severe strain on that sector and, of course, the additional costs of the Meat Hygiene Service? Will the Government also take steps to minimise the effect on that sector, and to ensure that small and medium-sized abattoirs are not closed?

Mr. Hogg: I understand the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Whenever we consider the impact of regulation we must make an assessment of the compliance cost to the industry, weighed against the benefit to the public, and we shall take that necessary


action in this instance. I shall try to reach a view, but I think that the House would want the Government to implement SEAC's recommendations in full, including the recommendation that has the effect to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. David Harris: I commend both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on their responsible approach.
I hope that this will not happen, but if there is a drastic fall in the sale and consumption of beef—at least in the short term—will it not result from the media's sensational treatment of the issue, rather than from a careful reading of the scientific statements issued by the advisory committee and the chief medical officer?
May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to consider the likely impact of the steps that are now being taken on small abattoirs and processing plants? I fear that those steps may lead to further closures, which would not be in the interests of the rural economy or, indeed, those of animal welfare.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the rural economy and small abattoirs, and I shall certainly take account of the interests of that sector. As for his first point, I agree with him. I believe that careful consideration of the evidence from SEAC and the chief medical officer that has been placed before the House will reassure the public, and if that is so the market will not be damaged.

Mr. Robert Key: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware not only that he and I are at one in believing that the safety of food products is paramount,

but that that is also the view of the producers—Whatever their size—the veterinary scientists, the workers in the slaughterhouses, the retailers and the distributors? Will he undertake to talk to our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not just about the state of the market, but about immediate mechanisms to support it? It is the small markets across rural England, and the small butchers, who are likely to feel the draught. It takes only a small shift in demand from one product to another in a rural butchery for all the products to be unavailable, not just the beef.

Mr. Hogg: It is to my advantage that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was my predecessor in my current office, and is therefore well acquainted with the problems that my hon. Friend has described.
My hon. Friend referred to the paramount importance of food safety. I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to say this. People sometimes suggest that the interests of agriculture and farmers are MAFF's overriding concern, and obviously they are of great concern to us; but our paramount duty is to public safety—the safety of the food chain and of British food. That is the paramount duty owed by my Department, and myself as Minister, to the House and the country.

BILL PRESENTED

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (No. 2)

Sir Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. Alex Carlile, Sir Archibald Hamilton, Sir Jim Lester, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Quentin Davies and Mr. Ray Powell, presented a Bill to make it an offence to sell or to buy tapes or transcripts of private conversations otherwise than with the consent of both parties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Road Traffic (Reduction)

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes.
The Bill was given a Second Reading after I introduced it under the ten-minute rule in April 1995. I also spoke on its themes during the summer Adjournment debate in July 1994. Over that period, my conviction that the Bill dealt with a topic whose time had come has become stronger and stronger.
Recently, a number of events have served to underline the pressing environmental, social and economic reasons why the present seemingly inexorable increase in road traffic must be halted and reversed. In December, the scientific working party of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, chaired by Sir John Houghton, also chairman of the royal commission on environmental pollution, announced its conclusion, following exhaustive research, that climate change was occurring as a result of greenhouse gas emissions and that radical action was required to mitigate its grave effects. As the royal commission report clearly showed, tackling the problem of road traffic is crucial to that.
Last week, the Department of the Environment published its important "Indicators of sustainable development for the United Kingdom" document. The section on transport makes dismal reading. It reports that car use has almost doubled to an average of 6,500 miles a year per person, although use of buses has declined by one quarter to an average 600 miles a year and rail use has remained only constant at an average 400 miles a year. The average distance of commuter journeys has increased by 40 per cent. since 1974, journeys for shopping by 35 per cent. and those for taking children to and from school by 40 per cent.
Energy consumption for road passengers has nearly doubled and for freight it has increased by more than 60 per cent. since 1970, so any improvements in vehicles' energy efficiency has been more than cancelled out. The fact that the average Briton travels less for each gallon of fuel consumed than in 1970 is shocking and illustrates that technological improvements in energy efficiency, welcome though they are, do not provide the answer to the problem.
The Government's pioneering document demonstrates clearly that our current transport system—let alone what we will have if projections are only partly fulfilled—is utterly unsustainable. For good measure, it reckons that Britain will exhaust its domestic oil supplies in 14 years and its gas supplies in 25 years. Scientific reports underline the extent of the problem in that way, but the direct action on the route of the Newbury bypass illustrates both the terrible dilemmas created by increased traffic—we know that the bypass will further increase traffic—and the conflict that will inevitably arise if we do not change direction.
The latest of recent events highlighting the importance of road traffic reduction is the Sea Empress disaster, and the terrible ecological, economic, social and, as we have

heard today in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, personal cost that it is imposing. Small wonder that, in its letter to the Prime Minister concerning the Sea Empress, a group of environmental organisations say:
We would also ask you, independently of the inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster, what actions you propose to take to reduce the underlying need for oil tanker movements, by reducing Britain's reliance on oil".
There are many ways of doing that, but reducing road traffic must be among the most important.
Following all that, the good news is that more and more people and organisations are applying their minds to solutions. Last year, there was the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales document "Wales Needs Transport, Not Traffic". Recently, I came across a report by the Institution of Civil Engineers entitled "A Vision for Rural Public Transport", and the environmental change unit at the university of Oxford is conducting a long-term project called "Sustainable Mobility and Accessible Rural Transport". I mention those two in particular because, naturally enough, I am interested in the rural scene and in what the SMART report on "Rural Travel and Transport Corridors" calls travel poverty. That is an important reality in rural areas.
There are 101 initiatives of various kinds at the local level which are attempting to make an impact. I mention just a few. At Aberystwyth in my constituency the chamber of trade is proposing the installation of the Parry people mover tram in response to traffic congestion, as a means of improving access to the traditional town centre from the new and regrettable out-of-town retail development, and as a way of enhancing the competitiveness of the town centre by making it a more attractive and interesting place to be. I hope that it is successful in its bid to the Welsh Office for strategic development scheme funding for that excellent initiative.
Oxford county council is developing a transport strategy involving bus priority, improved park-and-ride and pedestrianisation schemes, the limitation of parking in central areas, better facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, and particularly the disabled, and other measures. The transport study on which it is based involved the collection of extensive information about travel patterns in the city and comprehensive public opinion surveys. Different transport measures were evaluated for their comparative effectiveness. Feedback from an exhibition of the resulting strategy revealed widespread concern about existing conditions and overwhelming support for the new proposals, and that is encouraging.
What is needed now is a political focus for the growing awareness that exists and the sense of co-ordinated purpose that comes from a strategy. That is what the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill provides. It is important for the House, the Government and particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench to understand just how much support it is attracting. Early-day motion 21 in support of the Bill has already been signed by 111 hon. Members and I am confident that that number can be doubled without much difficulty. A substantial number of local authorities and a wide range of organisations have already registered support and the number is increasing.
I mention those on the Opposition Front Bench particularly because they are likely to form the next Government and are looking for sensible policies, and


because they have a long way to go to begin to prove their credentials in the area of environmental sustainability policy.
I am pretty confident that the Secretary of State for the Environment will support the Bill, certainly in principle, as he has shown a serious interest in sustainable development. I have some difficulty with the Secretary of State's failure—or perhaps tactical refusal—when talking about sustainability to differentiate between the concepts of change, development and growth, but at least he is on the record as recognising the need to separate economic growth from transport growth, certainly traffic growth. That is a promising start. Certainly an enlightened definition of progress, which at all times should incorporate quality of life considerations, must imply support for the Bill's aims.
I am encouraged by the support expressed by my local authority, Ceredigion district council, which serves a predominantly rural area. That emphasises the fact that traffic is not just a problem of urban congestion. It also points to the need for something other than economic instruments. I am very much afraid, from what the Government are saying, that they will overly depend on those matters. We need a much more comprehensive, sensitive and intricate approach than the one to which the

Government seem currently committed, with their emphasis on economic instruments. That is simply internalising environmental costs.
The studies carried out in the area particularly emphasise the crucial role of local government in the matter—the need for powerful local authorities to take initiatives to invest and, if necessary, to regulate traffic.
Bearing all that in mind, we need legislation along the lines that the Bill offers and I ask the House to express its support for that this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Alan Simpson and Sir Richard Body.

ROAD TRAFFIC (REDUCTION)

Mr. Cynog Dafis accordingly presented a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Orders of the Day — Reserve Forces Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is an important Bill as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your military interests, will be aware. It will bring the law governing reserves up to date, taking account of social, economic, service and strategic changes in the 30 years since the last substantial Reserve Forces Act in 1966. It will permit the reserve forces to be used more flexibly.
The reserve forces are an essential and vital element of our armed forces, and the Government attach great significance to them. Over the years, the reserves have adapted in order to meet changing circumstances and commitments, and they have become experts in a wide range of skills and specialisms. We in Great Britain are truly fortunate to be able to rely on the voluntary commitment of the men and women who serve in the reserves. They are capable of playing a significant part in our military contribution to the international response to future crises around the world and the Bill will make it easier for them to do so.
As the House will be aware, reservists are making a significant contribution in support of current operations. The largest number are serving as part of the UK's contribution to the NATO-led peace implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. There are currently some 650 reservists called out in support of the operation. They are doing excellent work and the whole House will wish to endorse their splendid efforts.
The Bill has been the subject of a very extensive and successful consultation exercise. The policy and provisions of the Bill have been therefore been considered broadly. I am sure that that has been an important factor in the general welcome which the Bill has received. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the broad support that the Bill received during its consideration in another place. A number of detailed and technical amendments were made there and there have been some useful improvements.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said some time ago that the Opposition would give the Bill a fair wind. I am sure that he is still of that mind. I know that Opposition Members share that view, and that the Bill will receive a smooth and speedy passage through the House, with proper and detailed consideration. I am sure that the policies enshrined in the Bill will command support from all parties in the House.
I am conscious of the fact that events today have meant that we will not have as long as we would have liked to debate this important matter. Therefore, I propose to speak briefly so that other hon. Members will have time to make the points that they wish to make. It is a great strength of the House that there are people here who have detailed knowledge and real experience of the reserves which will bring to the debate an importance that other debates sometimes lack. I intend, therefore, to restrict my

comments to the main provisions and to mentioning those significant issues that were raised during the Bill's consideration in another place.
Part III makes provision for reservists to be able to undertake periods of full-time and part-time reserve service. That will be a significant improvement on the current arrangements for the use of volunteers from the reserve forces without call-out, which require them to leave the volunteer reserves, join the armed forces as regulars, and rejoin the volunteer reserves when their period of duty is completed. That is a tortuous process and it is clearly right that it should be amended, and speedily. The voluntary employment of reservists under the arrangements will enable our reserves to be used more flexibly in future, and it will offer immeasurably greater opportunities for individuals to increase their skills and undertake a wider range of tasks.
The Bill creates two new categories of reserve. Part IV deals with one—the high-readiness reserve, or HRR for short. The Bill refers not to HRR but to "special agreements", made between the Ministry of Defence and the individual when he or she accepts an increased call-out liability. The consent of the individual's civilian employer is of course also required.
We envisage that reservists with skills in short supply would mainly become subjects of special agreements. They would volunteer, with the consent of their employer, to take on a higher call-out liability. Those who agreed to accept the higher call-out liability would be subject to a maximum period of nine months' call-out. Special agreements would have to be reviewed annually, permitting both individuals and employers to re-examine whether special agreement status remained compatible with their circumstances.
The sponsored reserve scheme, to be created under part V, will permit some support tasks that are currently performed by regulars to be let to contract. The sponsored reserve will consist of civilians belonging to a contractor's work force who accept a reserve liability to continue to provide a contracted service in an operational environment. We would use the concept only where it was cost-effective and did not in any way jeopardise or compromise operational effectiveness. We believe that the concept will allow the extension of the market-testing programme into new areas to the benefit of the services and the defence industry.
Our ideas have been welcomed by many employers, who are very keen to pursue the opportunities that the scheme will provide. We of course recognise that we shall need to continue to maintain the closest liaison with employers and unions if the scheme is to be implemented successfully. Indeed, the Bill requires formal consultation before regulations are made.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Would the persons referred to in part V be subject to armed services legislation?

Mr. Soames: They would for the period in which they were engaged in the particular tasks. The way in which this will be conducted is, as I say, a matter for detailed consultation in the fullness of time with employers and unions.
Part VI re-enacts in simplified form the principal call-out powers of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, and also includes one of the most significant new provisions: a new


power of call-out for peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations. That will enable the reserves to be a part of the United Kingdom's contribution to the relief of human suffering around the world. I am sure that the House agrees that, since many reservists would very much like to play a bigger role, it is very important that they are able to contribute to such operations alongside their regular colleagues. Indeed, they may have skills that are simply not available in detail and depth at all times in the regular forces.
The maximum length of obligatory service after call-out for peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations was discussed at some length in another place. The debate centred on whether a period of six months was more suitable than the nine months specified in the Bill. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary explained that a period of nine months was stipulated as a result of the most careful and detailed consideration, and was supported by the three services, the Territorial Army colonels and the chairmen of the 14 territorial auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations.
A period of six months would not have permitted the services to plan on reservists undertaking a six-month operational tour alongside their regular colleagues. Clearly, time must be allowed for those called out to undergo the mobilisation process, join their units, and undertake training before deployment. Nine months is sufficient for the necessary pre-deployment arrangements, and, just as important, is sufficient for individuals to take their leave entitlement at the end of their period of regular service. Faced with those arguments, their Lordships agreed to leave the Bill unamended.
Part VIII creates two important safeguards. The first is a right to seek exemption from or deferral of call-out, exercisable by a reservist and by his or her employer. The second is the provision for financial assistance to reservists and employers who are financially disadvantaged as a result of call-out. Those new safeguards clearly recognise changing employment and social pressures and the great importance of the intimate relationship between employers, reservists and the MOD. We believe that it is right to take steps to minimise any financial loss suffered by employers or reservists at a time of call-out. The proposals have been widely welcomed.

Dr. Godman: Surely it is not only a question of financial assistance. What about persons who are carrying out tasks in civilian occupations which require constant retraining? I am thinking, for example, of a welder having to weld to North sea standards. If that person is away from such work for nine months without retraining, he would not be able to go back to his old job. What retraining possibilities are there for such persons?

Mr. Soames: I cannot comment on the detail of that matter right now. All I would say, as I have already said, is that the scheme will work only if employers and reservists are confident of the arrangements made by the MOD. If they are not, we will simply not be able to attract the people whom we need. We will make absolutely sure of such confidence. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, the detail of which will have to be enshrined in the Bill when we come to a conclusion on how to manage such matters.
The Government recognise the need to safeguard the civilian pension provision of reservists, and the provisions of part VIII allow us so to do. We are fully seized of the need to use these powers if the new provisions are to be a success. We intend to consult closely the pension industry, employers and other interested parties as ideas are developed.
Part IX makes provision for an independent system of appeal tribunals to arbitrate in the case of dispute. It is our intention to make the tribunals informal, fair and quick.
Owing to the pressure of time and the number of hon. Members who want to speak, I have tried to explain in a few moments the essential and cardinal features of what we believe is a very important piece of legislation that is in the interests of the reservists and therefore of the assets of the United Kingdom's armed forces.
The Bill is widely welcomed by the people whom it affects; I know that reservists are truly excited by the new opportunities that it offers them. It provides an important framework for the 21st century, combining the greater flexibility to use reserves with new powers of call-out and important safeguards for individuals and employers. As I said at the outset, the reserves are a truly vital part of our national effort. It is inconceivable that we will not be making more use of them, and it is important that the proper legislative framework enables them, the MOD and employers—to whom, as well as to those who serve, I extend a warm and whole-hearted vote of thanks for enabling such legislation to be possible—to have confidence in the operation. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Since the Opposition Front-Bench team are also disappointed at the length of the debate, I shall try to match the brevity of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
Labour Members, like the Minister, pay tribute to our reserve forces. I was glad that he specifically referred to the 650 members of the reserve forces who are operating in the former Yugoslavia.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that the reserve forces provide that vital link between local communities and our regular forces, very much like the cadet forces. I am particularly proud that the senior reserve regiment of the British Army—the Royal Monmouthshire (Royal Engineers) Militia, founded in 1577—is partly based in my constituency, with the 100 Field Squadron, located in Chapman house in Cwmbran. It has a long history and we are very proud of it.
The Minister was correct to say that the legislation is now out of date. The Defence Committee said:
The present legislation is untidy, complex and inconsistent. 
For that reason, as well as others, Labour Members will support the Bill in principle. We believe, as the Minister said, that there is a need for a more flexible reserve force, for special skills to be harnessed and for our country to play its part in multinational operations.
As we speak, the French Parliament is debating the future of the French armed forces. We know that other NATO countries are experiencing problems in their reserve forces—especially in the former Yugoslavia and the Gulf—in terms of poor training, inadequate management and awkward call-out measures.
The excellent report produced by the Defence Select Committee last year highlighted our problems. I understand that the turnover rate in the reserve forces is as high as 30 per cent., which compares with 20 per cent. in the United States and 21 per cent. in Australia. There is certainly a need for better recruitment to try to overcome that problem, and for improved training.
On average, only 27 days a year are spent in training in the Territorial Army. That is pretty low by comparison with our NATO counterparts. Officers are given only a two-week course at Sandhurst, compared with six months of training in the United States, 10 weeks in Canada and nine weeks in Australia. There is clearly a need to examine how we manage our reserve forces. I think that the Bill gives the House the opportunity so to do.
In the Navy debate, I and other hon. Members referred to the decline in numbers in the Royal Naval Reserve—the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve has gone altogether. We need assurances about the future of the Royal Marine Reserve. The Defence Committee rightly referred to the anxiety about the future of Royal Auxiliary Air Force. In its report, it said:
It is disappointing that two years after the Options for Change announcement, when presumably some considerable thought was given to the future role of the RAuxAF, so little has so far been established.
I hope that, if not today, then in Committee, the Minister can assure hon. Members of the future of those forces.
We are concerned about the cost and efficiency of administration in the reserve forces. I have been told that between 5,000 and 6,000 administrators of one sort or another are in the reserve forces, that the Territorial Army has little influence over its own management, that only a handful of officers reach senior rank and that there is only one brigadier for some 60,000 people. We are concerned about the ratio of administrators to members of the reserve forces. A typical unit has a current strength of 700, with a back-up of about 100 administrators. Effectively, because of hours put in by reservists, that is a ratio of one administrator to every one reservist, which is a 300 per cent. increase in 15 years. It is no wonder that the Defence Committee said that the non-regular permanent staff need to be streamlined.
I think that all hon. Members agree that the Bill should not be seen simply as a money-saving exercise or as a substitute for proper funding of our regular forces. Nor should it be seen as a method for back-door privatisation or contractorisation. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the future of the Ministry of Defence police because clauses 24 to 27 give the Secretary of State powers with which he could privatise it. That possibility has caused great unease, and it is ironic bearing in mind the fact that the Home Secretary has recently talked about increasing the number of regular police people.
Other people regard the sponsored reserve concept as a possible threat from companies that are eager to win Government orders to our regular engineers, electricians and mechanics. Obviously we must take care with that issue. Other problems have to be sorted out with regard to the sponsored reserve concept. Will regular soldiers want to work alongside relatively untrained men? Will employers put undue pressure on employees to join the scheme, especially since firms will be anxious for more business? When training occurs, it is vital that it is carried out during the normal working day.
Employers are critical in making sponsored and high-readiness reserve schemes workable. I hope that we will be assured in Committee that financial safeguards are adequate, that payments to employers are prompt and that the compliance cost assessment—which we will consider in detail—is adequate. Employers were apparently asked to complete a questionnaire that requested information on the additional costs that they would incur if they took on a temporary replacement for an employee on call-out. Only 60 employers responded, eight of whom came from small businesses. That information and the formula must be examined with great care.
We must also be assured that form-filling and bureaucracy will be kept to a minimum. The example set in the Gulf was not good. In the Gulf war, the territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations commented that the procedures for payment to reservists were so inadequate that reservists
gave up in the face of bureaucracy".
That does not have to happen again. If we are to have a scheme that is workable and acceptable to employers, there must be a proper system that is prompt, fair, efficient and workable.
We must, of course, pay very special attention to employers. Will they be persuaded to release their employees for humanitarian operations? It is well and good for them to release employees for a Falklands war or a Gulf war, but will employers be convinced by call-ups for their people to go to Somalia or Rwanda, for example? We must define very carefully the difference between what the Bill refers to as a "war-like operation" and a humanitarian one.
The high-readiness reserve should not be seen as a stop-gap for skill shortages in the regular forces. One officer was quoted in The Independent in October last year as saying:
Who, if they are any good, can just take nine months off? What we will get will be the freelancing, self-financing adventurers, or back-room people—just the sort we do not want.
That may well be exaggerated, but it is a point. We have to ensure that people who join the high-readiness reserve are people who will be respected and can be employed by the regular forces.
There was a lot of talk in the other place about the problems of medical staff and the difficulties of national health service trusts releasing staff to be reservists. We know that there is a squeeze on resources from both ends—the NHS and the MOD. We have to consider that very carefully.
On a wider scale, aid agencies—Oxfam, in particular—are troubled that military aid for humanitarian purposes, unless it is directed properly, could cause special difficulties. They fear that such exercises would be far from cost-effective and would suffer from a lack of long-term commitment.
The Minister referred to debates in the other place on pensions. That is, of course, is a very important issue, as is discrimination against reservists by businesses. We have to look to the Bill to strengthen the case for reservists if they are discriminated against by employers because they have chosen to serve their country in this very special way.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman has made a profound point. Change will not be achieved


primarily through legislation but by a change of ethos among employers. One of the reasons why the Americans, Australians and Canadians have been more successful than us in changing that ethos is precisely because of the point he made five minutes ago: they have senior reservist generals in their Ministries of Defence to advise Ministers on how to devise operating systems that will most be appreciated by employers and the wider civilian community.

Mr. Murphy: I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. Perhaps it could be expanded on when we consider the Bill in greater detail.
While employers and employees require a proper system of appeal for exemptions from call-out, we shall need to examine in some detail in Committee some of the provisions with regard, for example, to general offences and other matters. The Minister referred to the tribunals. I welcome that reference because it is important that there should be an opportunity for people who want to be exempt from call-out to be dealt with swiftly and fairly. As good as the National Employer Liaison Committee is, we must involve many more organisations in the tribunals—for example, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors and, of course, our large businesses and the Federation of Small Businesses. However, that is largely a matter of detail. I hope that it can be dealt with in Committee, along with the detailed arrangements for exemption, call-out, pay and organisation.
Opposition Members agree with the Select Committee on Defence when it concluded that
an increasing reliance on, or willingness to use, Reserve forces must be accompanied by an increased commitment to preserving their strength and improving their quality ߪ A new emphasis on monitoring the quality of training and recruiting the best individuals is also essential, and we look forward to seeing these measures in place so that, in time, the Reserve forces can be seen to be not just smaller, but demonstrably better".
About a century ago, my grandfather, who was a miner, joined what was then the equivalent of the Territorial Army—the Monmouthshire Militia. He was very proud of doing so. Today, tens of thousands of men and women are equally proud of being members of the reserve forces. The House owes it to them and to the reservists who will follow to make sure that this legislation will stand the test of time.

Sir Hector Monro: The speeches of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces show that we shall have in Committee a constructive and worthwhile debate that will make the Bill even better than it is already. It is a good Bill because there has been lengthy consultation within the services, the reserves and the territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations, not only throughout the country but with the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations Council.
As the regular forces are run down, it is vital that we retain an effective military capability. Many of us think that we are perhaps under strength and over committed. That was highlighted by the sad loss of so many Royal Air Force

service men last week. In this situation, the reserves are more important than ever before, because they provide immediate front and rear line cover and support for the regular forces. I know that "Front Line First" has become a slogan, but, in reality, the front line is only as good as the reserves. That goes for the Royal Navy, the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
I should declare an interest as the Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Honorary Air Commodore of 2622 Squadron. I have overall responsibility for the auxiliaries with the inspector and have the generous help of the Controller of the Reserve Forces at Innsworth. I have direct access to the Chief of the Air Staff, and we have constructive, cordial and regular meetings. I was certainly impressed by the Select Committee's recommendation that the Territorial Army should have something similar—a reservist who is a director general of the reserves and who therefore has an important part to play within the Ministry of Defence.
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve are small, and many regular officers know little of their quality and capability unless there happens to be a unit on their station. I shall outline one or two details of the history of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and what it has achieved.
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force was formed in 1924, so it is only seven years younger than the Royal Air Force. It had 20 flying squadrons in 1939, based on cities and counties—the 600 Squadron from the City of London, the 601 from the county of London, the 602 from Glasgow and the 603 from Edinburgh, a squadron that I joined later.
The squadrons fought in the battle of Britain with Spitfires and Hurricanes and were credited with shooting down one third of all enemy aircraft that were destroyed. It is true to say that the battle of Britain could not have been won without the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Members of this House took a particular interest in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—Aiden Crawley, Vere Harvey, Grant Ferris, the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Selkirk and others were much involved, along with Honorary Air Commodores such as Sir Will Darling from Edinburgh, Sir Anthony Eden and, of course, Winston Churchill, who was the famed Honorary Air Commodore of 615 Squadron. Members of the royal family are Honorary Air Commodores and, of course, the Queen has always been our Air Commodore-in-Chief.
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force was reformed after the war and flew Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Vampires and Meteors. Sadly, it was disbanded in 1957—perhaps that was not one of our best decisions. However, the tradition of the auxiliaries was carried on through the maritime headquarters unit. From 1980 onwards, there was a steady expansion with regiment squadrons, gun squadrons—guns were retrieved from the Argentine in the Falklands war—and the defence force flight.
"Options for Change" put the expansion into reverse, which was perhaps an ill-advised decision, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said. We lost three squadrons and four defence force flights. That was a bit of a slap in the face to keen, enthusiastic volunteers who were doing what they could to help their country by being members of the reserve forces.
Now, we have a much brighter future and enhanced opportunities under the Bill, which implements much of what is required. The call-out in the Gulf was a case in


point. The restrictions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 revealed deficiencies and, of course, there was some indecision in the Ministry of Defence about the status of reserves.
All members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force are volunteers and ready to go at the drop of a hat. The two squadrons that were called out—the 4626 Medical Squadron and the 4624 Movement Squadron—were ready to move in 72 hours. They did valuable work in the Gulf and at Brize Norton where they were also helping. There were no problems, because the normal procedures were in place for those who could not go to put a case to the tribunal. One or two exceptional cases were accepted. I am glad that the matter is to be spelt out in more detail.
It was, however, certainly frustrating for the auxiliaries who were keen to go but unable to be called out for one reason or another. There were so many things that they could have done, such as guard duty on stations. The engineers and other tradesmen were hard pressed to keep our front-line aircraft serviced, but had to do guard duty. The reservists could have done it for them but not, apparently, under the law at the time.
In addition, employers had given reservists time off year after year for continuous or weekend training and asked why, when there was an international crisis, the reservists were not called out. It seems that their enthusiasm to help the auxiliaries was not reciprocated in an international crisis. I hope that such problems will be righted and dealt with in Committee.
I am glad that the humanitarian aspects of dealing with disasters are to be dealt with. We have always been keen to help. Territorials were involved at the time of the Lockerbie disaster, and even last month, during the particularly heavy snow falls, the TA was keen to help and did so when required.
In many ways, high-readiness reserves are similar to the Royal Auxiliary Service, because they are ready to go at the drop of a hat. The change of emphasis means that, whereas the auxiliaries operate as a unit, members of the HRR will operate more as individuals. We must be careful in Committee, because we do not want to create a feeling within a unit that some are getting more resources because they are on the HRR list than those which are ready to go but are not on the list. We also have to balance employers' attitudes to call-out for six or nine months. From reading the debate in the Lords and from considering the matter myself, I am sure that the Government are right that nine months should be the period. That allows time for training, going away for sixth months, returning, debriefing, perhaps retraining for a civilian task, which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned, and for leave. Six to nine months is what we should consider in Committee. I read, too, the National Employer Liaison Committee paper on call-out exemptions, which made many sensible suggestions.
The Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve has done a wonderful job and has the same great traditions as the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The two living recipients of the Victoria cross in the Royal Air Force were both in the volunteer reserve during the war. On 1 April 1997, subject to the Bill going through the House, the volunteer reserve flights—intelligence, interrogation, meteorology and so on—will come into the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to make one force. That is all to the good. The reservists are

keen on that. There is an amicable relationship. We are looking forward to a great ceremony next spring when the volunteer reserve and the auxiliaries will be united. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that it does not happen on election day.
We in the reserves are keen to maintain a welcome place for women. We have women in the regiment squadron, and many serve in the maritime headquarters unit and, of course, in the movement squadron. They all do the most valuable work and we must maintain a prominent place for them.
The hon. Member for Torfaen talked about the medical side. We have the area medical squadron with a flight detached to Edinburgh. Doctors are in short supply in the reserves, especially the highly trained consultants that are needed to deal with the exceptional injuries that occur in war—particularly with aircraft.
The auxiliaries are doing well and we look forward with confidence to the immediate future. We have cadreised squadrons—27 and 48 squadrons—where auxiliaries work with regulars who operate Rapier. That is good. There are plans for composite squadrons. That is the way that we will go in future. We will not have squadron units like the present regiment squadrons, but composite squadrons full of skilled tradesmen and men of great experience who may be hived off one, two or three at a time to assist the regular Air Force at times of need. That is an important change of emphasis.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that we also need a geographical change. Units are concentrated in the east and the south-west because that is where the aerodromes at which the auxiliary squadrons are based are located, but we have little in the west midlands or the north of England. I would like able men or women who are keen to be reservists to have the opportunity to join reserve units. There should be something near to where they live.
We are having successful flying trials with the Wessex and Hercules. I should like to have a look at the Hawk and do some search and rescue work as the opportunity arises. In return for all the high morale and hard work, I hope that the MOD will give us adequate opportunity to train abroad. Every two or three years, squadrons should go to Cyprus, Germany or the United States of America, because that is a great incentive that is warmly welcomed by all reservists.
We must also think of reservists' families, which give up husbands, boyfriends and other relatives for long periods while they are away doing their volunteer training. As the hon. Member for Torfaen said, when we ask them to do so much, let us not waste time with red tape. There is far too much paperwork in the MOD and the auxiliary air force. I go berserk trying to translate all the sets of initials. I do not have a clue what they stand for.
Last, the RAuxAF, like the Territorial Army and the Navy, asks for stability. We have gone through a traumatic period. We should now concentrate and build for the future. The Bill gives us a great opportunity so to do. It is a valuable step forward. It is tremendous that reservists have this year a Bill that we will discuss in detail in Committee which will give them a real opportunity to serve their country, which they appreciate so much.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Territorial Army has always recruited well in Wales. As a Welshman, I am therefore pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) in this debate.
Equally, I attended in June 1994 at University college, London a conference on the future of the TA with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). The TA representatives hoped that the Bill would appear in the Queen's Speech at the end of that year. Although the draft Bill did not appear until May 1995, it is clear that the Government used the time wisely in consultation. I hope that that will be a precedent for other Bills. There was a thorough examination of the Bill in the other place, with a great deal of expertise and experience which, alas, is perhaps not wholly matched in this House. Given the degree of consultation and scrutiny of the Bill and the TA's impatience and enthusiasm, perhaps we can give the Bill an easier passage than we otherwise might have done.
One problem is that fewer and fewer people can offer the reservoir of experience that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) can. Alas, his generation is passing on and there is an increasing gulf, both within and outside the House, between civilian society and the services, in part because of the ending of national service. One of the joys of the TA is that it is a means of bridging that otherwise increasingly yawning gulf. Such bridges must be built and the TA should be used for that purpose.
Some may argue that the Bill's key motivation was to get an army on the cheap and that the fingerprints of the Treasury are all over it. That may have been a part of it, but we are convinced that it is really to make our reserve forces more flexible and enable them to adjust properly to a changed world environment and to changes in our society. I shall not go into the details of parts III, IV and V, which are relevant to the need for increased flexibility.

Dr. Godman: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the circumstances surrounding the call-up of an unemployed person? Would such a person, when he finishes his service with the armed forces, be allowed to start at the beginning in terms of receiving the jobseeker's allowance?

Mr. Anderson: That is a matter of detail for the Employment Service. I understand that a sizeable proportion of reservists are unemployed, but that employers are more and more ready to value the skills that reservists gain in their periods of training. That benefit will be enhanced by the aligning of qualifications in the service with qualifications outside so that employers will have a valuable product at the end of the service period.
I have a few points to make, which I hope are non-partisan. It is objectively true that a number of problems created by the Government impact adversely on reservists. First, the simultaneous reduction of the regular and volunteer elements of our defence forces had a cumulative effect which could have been avoided if our reserve forces had been reduced a year or so after the substantial reductions in our regular forces.
Another change—I appreciate that I would be out of order if I went too far down this road—is the effect of the Government's Sunday trading legislation, with the

increase in seven-day high street trading, which makes the concept of weekend soldiers more difficult and the weekend soldiers more difficult to identify, recruit and train progressively. There are also the Government reforms in the health service, to which I shall come in a moment.
It is essential to provide flexibility and to have a seamless regular-reserve concept which involves much closer liaison with civilian society, employers and trade unions. Short-term contracts are increasingly a feature of employment, but short-term service is a relatively new concept in our military, although one much advanced in, for example Canada. I hope that the Ministry of Defence can learn substantially from the Canadian precedent. Short-term contracts raise issues about the standards of professionalism as well as about the levels of training and competence required of military employment groups.
We rightly boast of our military as a centre of excellence. We therefore need to proceed with care to avoid dilution and we need to look carefully at the terms of service. A civilian employee is rarely expected to work under the terms of service offered by the Army. We must also consider the new nature of risk. We need to study, for example, the insurance of our new reservists because the British Army has been notoriously poor in terms of insuring its personnel.
The Bill will also have an effect on the ethos of our military units. A person who signs up for the military signs up for a quasi-family structure, with a supportive framework. If we are to have individual reservists who are not in formed units, it will be more difficult to maintain that ethos, which has been so valuable a feature of our services.
We assume that civilian volunteers can bring their skills smoothly into the military, although their military tasks are often very different from their previous tasks. In Canada, for example, there is up to six months of pre-training before the volunteers have overseas postings.
I have two observations on the link with the civilian sector. The Government have clearly made a strong effort to liaise with employers and to listen to their problems, and there have been a number of modifications to the Bill as a result of those consultations. Reservists have much to offer, but it is clear that there is some resistance by employers, which was expressed recently at a conference on the Bill held in Birmingham.
Industry is increasingly competitive. I understand that sectors of industry which are owned by foreign companies are more resistant to releasing people for volunteer service than others. The difficulties are enhanced by the fact that fewer and fewer of the chairmen of our major companies have had military experience, so companies are less willing to release people. It is therefore important that there be bridge-building exercises. I commend the efforts of the employer liaison committees, established nationwide since 1988, and I especially commend the recent initiatives by the National Employer Liaison Committee, the general national vocational qualifications scheme, the university student scheme and others.
With regard to the national health service trusts, I accept that the executive stretch training has in some cases been focused on the trusts. However, I had a discussion this morning with the chief executive of my local health trust in which he spelled out the fact that the shortages in the NHS trusts are in precisely the specialties


that are needed by the military. One thinks particularly of anaesthetists, orthopaedic surgeons, accident and emergency specialists and neurosurgeons. In my local health service trust in Morriston, there are currently four vacancies for anaesthetists. An adjoining national health service trust tried to recruit anaesthetists by employing a headhunter to tour Europe; after two attempts it appointed three people, but at double the normal salary in NHS trusts. It is difficult to fill key posts in specialties needed by the military.
That problem is, alas, a result of the failings of medical manpower planning over the years. Planning is increasingly geared to conform with the immediate requirements of the patients charter. In the new contracting environment in which the trusts must deliver their contracts by the end of the year, it will clearly be difficult for the NHS trusts, which are contractually bound to deliver certain contracts, to be expected to release specialists when they are needed. That is especially true of peacekeeping operations in, for example, Cambodia or Somalia. Reservists may be sent to Saudi Arabia and may have to wait for a month or two in the expectation that something may happen, but the NHS trusts have to fulfil key contracts even though their staff are stretched and although junior doctors are doing work that should be done by consultants. I ask the Government to look carefully at that problem. If, within the new internal market, the Government add more requirements, they must have let-out arrangements to cater for the problems of health service trusts.
A blessing on the Bill—it is long awaited and much welcomed—but will it work in practice? Clearly we need to monitor its operation carefully, as the Canadian army social affairs department has done. We want to ensure that those who become reservists are not people who cannot get jobs elsewhere. We need to profile the background and motives of potential recruits and to find out whether they are absorbed back into their former employment when they leave the services. The House must recognise that our colleagues in the Territorial Army and reservists generally are impatient for the Bill to go through and we should respond accordingly.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the reserve forces being a bridge between the military and the civilian community, especially when there are fewer and fewer people around who have had any military experience. That was a point well made.
Like many others, I welcome the Bill. I hope that hon. Members who follow the fortunes of the air reserves and the naval reserves will not mind if I concentrate my remarks on the Territorial Army as I recently had the great honour and privilege of being appointed honorary colonel of the 4th Royal Green Jackets.
I especially welcome the great improvement in the procedures for embodying TA volunteers in the Regular Army during, for example, the humanitarian exercise in Bosnia. At present, when TA people transfer to the Regular Army on S-type engagements, a series of rather cumbersome steps must be gone through. People often lose a rank and they sometimes have to wait for several weeks while they go through a vetting process. That will all be taken care of in the new arrangements.
The Minister has referred to the debate about whether the period of service should be six or nine months. I give him my support for the proposal for nine months as the optimum period. It is important that the Army has the opportunity to get reasonable use out of TA volunteers. We should not underestimate the amount of adjustment and acclimatisation that will be necessary even among people who are specialists.
I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister an important point concerning funding of TA personnel. I hope very much that the funding liability will follow the person—that is to say, that it will be a charge on the budget of the Assistant Chief of General Staff and not remain as a charge on the TA budget. If that happened, it would be a serious diminution in the࠸

Mr. Soames: I hasten to give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. That must indeed be the case, and I think he will find that the ACGS will be proud to pay.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I should be interested to hear whether he is actually proud to pay, but I am glad to know that he will have the opportunity to pay.
The Territorial Army wants the chance to go overseas and train and exercise alongside regular units. Therefore, as much of the training day budgets as possible should be oriented towards making the training as exciting as possible, because that is why people join. In the context of "one Army", I should like mission statements to be developed for all TA units. It is important for members of the TA to know whether they will be used as independent units or whether they are individual people who will be used as gap-fillers. Work remains to be done in issuing those mission statements.
The idea of integrating the TA properly into the "one army" concept should not work against the concept of having a very senior TA officer at what I would describe as the pinnacle of the officer structure. Let us face it, to attract the brightest and the best into the TA and then retain them, which is equally important, it is important that they see the opportunity to get right to the top— by which I mean an appointment at two star level.
I very much welcome the Bill and I hope that it will soon pass through the House.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Those who have spoken have set admirable examples of brevity and relevance, which I shall do my best to follow.
I hope that once the Bill becomes law it will re-invigorate the reserve forces. It will give a new reason for the commitment and training that is already required. It will help retention, which was mentioned, and do much to increase morale, which many people acknowledge has been fragile in recent years.
It is right that members of the reserves will be able to be involved in activities that, although not of a strictly military nature according to the traditional definition, such as peacekeeping, are none the less activities in which our regular forces will be employed rather more frequently in future than any of us may have expected. If there are more opportunities and more possibilities of using the training that is currently required, those who undergo that training will be less likely to want to leave, which is bound to


have an effect on the high turnover. We should remember that members of the reserves often bring unique skills to the theatre of operation, especially in medicine and interpreting—skills which I understand are frequently in short supply in the Regular Army.
Broadly speaking, as the speeches have shown, the Bill enjoys the support of the House and has been given a fair wind, but several issues need further consideration. Some have been mentioned, but I shall mention others simply to place them on record. I do not necessarily require the Minister to respond today or even by letter immediately afterwards—I simply put down markers for issues which may require more detailed consideration in Committee.
On high-readiness reserves, I am worried about the possible problem of discrimination due to employers not being prepared to take the risk that an employee might be called out for up to nine months at relatively short notice. There is an obvious possibility of discrimination, but there is another, perhaps more insidious, possibility—that an employee's prospects for promotion in an organisation might be affected if the employee were subject to the high-readiness reserve commitment. It may be asking a great deal of human nature to expect an employer, choosing between two candidates of equal experience and qualification for one position, to manage to put out of his or her consideration the fact that one of them might be subject to the commitment involved in membership of a high-readiness reserve. That will require monitoring on the part of those responsible for such matters once the Bill has passed into law. Although one hesitates to talk about the need for specific organisations or structures for that purpose, that issue will be, at least in the first instance, a live issue in the mind of employers and—perhaps more significantly—of employees.
The Minister spoke about the maximum term of service that those who sign a special agreement to serve can be called up to serve. Notwithstanding the way in which he dealt with it in his speech, that issue will be revisited in Committee and perhaps even on Report. I do not wish to canvass the competing arguments that have been made about that issue, but obviously it needs further consideration.
I shall briefly discuss those who will come to be called sponsored reserves. We need to demonstrate realism about that proposal, for the following reason. We were all extremely impressed—as we should have been—by the extraordinary support that British Aerospace gave the British air effort in the Gulf war. We should remember, however, that British Aerospace was already in Saudi Arabia, there was a pre-existing infrastructure and it was actively seeking to demonstrate how well it could support the Tornado aircraft because it was actively seeking to persuade the Saudi Government—which it subsequently did—to acquire 48 of the aircraft. Those were special circumstances and it behoves us to be careful in making too many long-term judgments on the basis of such circumstances.
The other point about sponsored reserves which seems to be significant is as follows. It is envisaged that there will be active members of the reserves with a minimum training commitment, but to what extent will they be trained to survive on the battlefield? If they are expected to perform those functions, for which there appears to be the possibility of a contract, that may well place them in

circumstances in which their capacity to survive could be severely tested. That may or may not fit easily into their other obligations, but it is an issue that must be considered.
Like others, I am worried about the notion that national health service trusts are writing into the contracts of some of their specialists that they cannot join the reserves. The fact that, even in the Gulf, we needed to deploy a field ambulance unit from Glasgow from the reserves shows the extent to which, in time of crisis, reliance on reserve units is necessary in the medical field. It would be a curious reflection on the responsibility that national health service trusts accept or bear if they were to persist in actions of the type described. I hope that the Secretary of State for Health may find it appropriate to take up the issue with national health service trusts which have embarked, or may be about to embark, on implementing such proposals.
Manpower is another issue. The purpose of reservists is to ensure that in a crisis the services can draw on skilled and trained people. The Minister will accept that there would be a certain amount of reservation—no pun intended—in the House if it were felt that the purpose of the proposed legislation was to overcome circumstances in which there were too few regulars by using reservists.
A written answer on 12 March 1996 at columns 507ߝ8 shows that only seven out of 54 Army regiments are currently at their full establishment level. No doubt, this is a matter of which the Minister is well seized and he is seeking, so far as is available to him, to take steps to remedy it. I believe that in the House and in the country there would be some resistance to the notion that the purpose of increasing training and opportunities is to provide not a supplement but a substitute.
I welcome the proposal in clause 56 in relation to the possibility of the involvement of reserves in humanitarian, disaster relief and peacekeeping operations. The Minister may be aware that some non-governmental organisations, particularly Oxfam, have expressed some reservations about this as they are concerned that the humanitarian, disaster relief and peacekeeping roles should not be expanded to include the direct provision of relief. They have raised certain issues about military involvement not always being seen as entirely neutral but rather as political. They also raised issues about cost-effectiveness and referred to the mismatch of culture—the mentality of the soldier being always one of solving the problem, whereas the success of relief operations sometimes depends on a rather different approach. Those issues will have to be considered in Committee stage.
I welcome the Bill as it contains a sensible set of proposals and it should command the support of all hon. Members on Second Reading. For the reasons that I have outlined, the Bill will provide a valuable shot in the arm for the reserve forces of the Crown.

Mr. John Wilkinson: It always gladdens the heart when the grand hussar of British politics opens a debate—never more so than on this occasion. He never transmits with the mute button on, he comes over strength five, loud and clear. I agreed with every word in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
It is most encouraging that the reserve forces should have my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm behind them at this important legislative juncture and that Her Majesty's


Government, far from setting in place a series of reductions, can be instituting a framework that will offer the reserve forces opportunities to be used infinitely more widely in the defence of the realm and in peacekeeping operations.
We should bear in mind the examples set by the United States. I refer to the air reserves. For example, 60 per. cent. of the air defence of the continental United States is done by the Air National Guard and the United States Air Force reserve. In the Gulf war, 50 per cent. of the air transport was carried out by reserves from the United States air forces. We also have the supreme examples of Israel and Switzerland. The operational capability of Israel's air force, which has a large militia component, is second to none.
An honorary air commodore is sitting in front of me and an honorary colonel is sitting behind me, so it behoves me to be brief. What my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said needs to be borne in mind. At RAF Northolt in my constituency, which is the only No. 11 group sector station of erstwhile Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain that is still a flying station, we have No. 1 Maritime Headquarters Unit of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. When I visit it, I am always struck by the extremely high calibre of the personnel—officers and other ranks, men and women. There is now a galaxy of talent, a wealth of expertise and professional skill in the civil community which our armed forces need to use more effectively. The Bill will enable them to do just that.
In the reform of the reserve forces, I urge the Government to retain, as much as possible, formed units. The territorial connections of units of the reserves in all three armed forces are exceptionally important. I ask that Her Majesty's Government be imaginative and to recognise that modern simulation, for example, enables much more worthwhile training to be done in a relatively short time and means that there is a premium on the expertise, or the potential expertise, of the part-timer and the reservist which was not previously available.
When we are looking at sponsored reserves, again on the air side, I urge Her Majesty's Government to use sponsored reservists in the flying training schools so that they wear a uniform and so that the instructors are not—how should I put it—blazered and flannelled but clearly military, not just in orientation but in dress and appearance. With respect to the airlines, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will recognise that often airliners will have to be taken up, commandeered and put to military use. In those instances, I urge that the crews be required to be members of the sponsored reserve. The contractors who are providing the engineering personnel more and more at Royal Air Force stations should be sponsored reservists as well.
Finally, I refer to peacekeeping. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries pointed out, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has exceptionally valuable capability, as the Gulf war experience proved—including aeromedical and air movements expertise. The Royal Air Force regiment squadrons can be used to secure airheads in particularly troubled and difficult zones.
In conclusion, this is a timely Bill which I warmly welcome. I ask the Minister not to forget—because I did my armed forces scheme attachment to them—the Royal

Marines reserves. It would be a bad signal if at this juncture we were to reduce the complement of the Royal Marines reserves.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I endorse the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the importance of ensuring that a military ethos remains in place now that civilians are involved in training. I pay tribute to the third battalion of the Prince of Wales' Own Regiment of Yorkshire, which is based in my constituency and which currently has one Territorial Army officer and 18 other ranks serving in the NATO implementation force in Split. According to an article that appeared in the Soldier earlier this month, it is the first time that a non-specialist formed TA unit has been deployed in an operational theatre since Aden in 1965.
The battalion tells me that this unit is a specialist unit. It is trained in heavy weapons and mortar fire, but the role that it is playing in Split is as a general defensive unit. That is why it was described as such in the Soldier. What is different is that it has gone into theatre as a single unit, which has worked and trained together in the United Kingdom, to serve in the NATO force in Split. That is something that has not happened for 30 years, and something that is more likely to happen in the future and is supported by the Bill.
I asked an officer of the battalion how easy it had been to get volunteers to serve in this way, and he said that on this occasion it had not been too difficult. The unit comprises 19 people who will serve in Croatia for a six-month period. The officer is hopeful that he will be able to replace the unit with another TA formed unit when its tour of duty comes to an end in June.
Of the 19 men in the unit, seven are unemployed and two are self-employed—half the men serving in Split did not have to get the permission of their employer to do so. The availability of people who are either self—employed or who are unemployed will vary from one part of the country to the other. I am sure that all hon. Members would hope that the level of unemployment that we have at the moment will not persist in the long term, so let me add a word of caution. In future, it may be harder to mobilise a formed reservist unit.
My second point, on which I shall be brief, is a result of the time that I was extremely fortunate to spend in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was attached to the Royal Air Force for one year. It is obvious that the relationship between regulars and reservists is not always banter free.
In the context of a shrinking regular force and the measures proposed in the Bill, it is clear that our reserve forces will play a greater role in future. It is important that reservists and regulars should work together as a single unit on operational duties, so we need to be conscious of the potential for friction between the two.
During my time on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was told repeatedly by officers and other ranks in the Royal Air Force that contractorisation had gone far enough. However committed a private contractor is—and they spoke warmly and highly of the contractors that provide support services to the RAF—the work carried out by civilians is not the same as that of men and women in uniform. Particularly in the transitional period, when


the Royal Air Force and the other armed services are being reduced in size, there is inevitably some suspicion and friction between service men and contractors. Some service men—sometimes with justification—see the process of contractorisation as a threat to their jobs. It also represents a threat to the promotion prospects of some extremely able younger airmen.
Contractorisation has saved the armed forces hundreds of millions of pounds and that must be good, provided that it does not undermine the professionalism or the readiness for operations of our armed forces. Although it is right that the Bill should contain such a provision, the creation of a sponsored reserve is an admission that a greater commitment is needed from the civilians employed by contractors. I support the proposal to create the new category of a sponsored reserve, but I would not want it to become an excuse for pushing the boundaries of the functions market-tested and considered for contractorisation any wider.

Mr. Keith Mans: As a pilot in the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve, I welcome the Bill. As has been pointed out, while the regular forces are reducing in size, the reserves are steadily increasing in number. That is most encouraging. We must encourage people to volunteer for the reserves. I acknowledge the need for the nine-month rule and we should also ensure that we can recruit sufficient reservists in all three services. Therefore, we need to take into account the needs of employers, given that spare time is in not quite such abundant supply as it was in the past.
We also need to look closely at the medical reserves. That has been discussed in detail and I shall not repeat the points that have been raised. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take an early opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, whose wife is a reservist. I am quite certain that the result of that dialogue will be a greater understanding of the needs of the medical reserves in relation to the operation of trust hospitals.
It is also important to increase the status of the reserves. I fully acknowledge the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) about the need for a two-star reservist appointment for the position as head of the reserves. That will encourage further recruitment as it will provide a status and a voice they have not had in the past at that level.
Finally, I want to raise a couple of points about the Royal Air Force. As 14,000 regular airmen will be leaving the RAF this year, I hope that they will provide a good recruiting ground for further reservists. Many of them are leaving through voluntary redundancy. Sadly, a few are leaving through compulsory redundancy. None the less I would submit that many of them would be only too happy to serve in the reserves if they were given the opportunity to do so.
I fully acknowledge and support the idea of sponsored reserves. The Royal Air Force in particular is moving to a system of increased contractorisation. If we are to retain the capability of the training organisation in the air force—particularly the flying training organisation—to support the front line if we are ever called upon to take

part in a conflict such as that in the Gulf, we shall need a system whereby those in the training organisation can take up front-line posts to allow pilots to fly greater numbers of missions where they are stationed abroad. The only way to do that is to ensure that some of those contractorised pilots are reservists and can be called upon to carry out those important jobs.
I very much welcome the Bill, which is an important step forward for the reserve forces. As a reservist, I wish it every speed and success.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be very brief. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I have to declare an interest. I hold a honorary appointment and, in addition, I have served for 40 years as a volunteer reserve pilot and instructor and have commanded a volunteer unit. Like many of my hon. Friends, I speak from some experience and on behalf of the volunteers.
We welcome the Bill. We need to look at how the reserves and auxiliaries are structured, how the leadership is composed and how the command structures relate effectively to the volunteers and that requires volunteers at the top. We must also provide an environment in which volunteers can be called out quickly. I hope to address that in Committee by tabling some helpful amendments that would give my hon. Friends on the Front Bench more leverage and create the right environment based on experience.
There is nothing new about having reservists who can be called out quickly. We had it immediately after the second world war when all the reserve flying schools were staffed by reservists. That proved extremely valuable at the time of Korea, so we have some experience of that. Once again, I welcome the Bill.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I shall curtail my remarks, not least because the Bill has come before the House in a model way and the fact that it has received endorsement from another place and from the Opposition is a great tribute to the territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations, the National Employer Liaison Committee and, perhaps above all, to my hon. Friend the Minister, who for the past year has been absolutely meticulous in his exchanges with those of us who have written to him representing various points, all of which he has taken seriously.
The crux of the Bill is striking the right balance in the relationship between the Government employers and employees. I would not wish upon anyone my experience as an Army reserve officer who was forced to leave the volunteer reserves to join the regulars and then to rejoin the volunteer reserves at the conclusion of that service. It was a ridiculous system and I hope I do not misquote my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) who described it as a "pretty good shambles". We had the will to mobilise people, but the system was not adequate to the task. I hope that the Bill will rectify that situation.
I welcome particularly the provision whereby reservists will be used in humanitarian, disaster relief and peacekeeping operations. However, I issue a plea to my hon. Friend for constructive co-operation between his


Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration to ensure that people with the right expertise are deployed with maximum speed and minimum bureaucracy.
My hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute to 650 Territorial Army soldiers and reservists who are serving in Bosnia. I do not know whether some reservists have shown some initiative—exactly the sort of initiative that we want to see—and sneaked under the wire because, according to my arithmetic, more than 900 reserve and TA soldiers are serving in Bosnia. I welcome their deployment—whatever the correct figure may be. Last month I visited the platoon stationed in the Falklands. There are 20 or 30 men stationed in Cyprus and a contingent of 100 or so in Kenya. That is a proud record and the Bill lays the foundation for better deployment in future.
I shall now raise two points on behalf of individual reservists. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend—who responded very constructively—expressing my reservations about replacing personal annual reporting by reservists with a postal reporting system. It may be a cheaper method, but I cannot believe that it is reliable. People may change addresses or employers or become medically unfit and I think that the new system is a false economy. When the dust surrounding the legislation has settled, I ask my hon. Friend to consider reintroducing training liability for reservists, including personal weapons training and nuclear, biological and chemical drill. Will my hon. Friend also rationalise the existing four categories of reservists, which I believe is a complete nonsense?
In conclusion, I am concerned that in future regular forces will rely increasingly upon reservists for medical services—an issue that was mentioned previously in the debate. It has been suggested that restrictions will be written into national health service trust contracts. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend about the matter, and there is little anecdotal evidence to suggest that that will occur. Events have moved on and the problem now is that, under the Bill, employers will be able to apply to exempt their employees from reserve military duties. The House must address that issue. After all, there is precious little point in having a highly effective front-line force if one does not have a properly trained and integrated support body.
I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who referred to the valuable role played by the TAVRAs in bridging the gap between the regular services and people who have no experience of military life. I congratulate the TAVRAs, which do a marvellous job keeping alive the concept of a volunteer service.

Mr. Robert Key: Like the length of the debate, my contribution shall be in inverse proportion to the respect in which I hold the reserve forces and the importance that the House attaches to them. The British reserve forces are second to none. Large numbers of them visit my constituency of Salisbury for training every year and they will always be welcome.
Although the reserve forces protect our future, their roots are in the past, and the Bill deals in part with that historical tradition. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend

the Minister would explain clause 121 relating to the lieutenancies. I do not think that I have seen a declaratory clause in a Bill before. Clause 121(2) states:
It is hereby declared that the validity of the appointment of a lord-lieutenant".
I think that an explanation would underline the history of the reserve forces in this country and illuminate the debate.
I am proud to represent a constituency with a long tradition of association with this country's voluntary forces. It is exemplified by the 62nd Wiltshire Regiment of Foot, which dates back 200 years. I pay a warm tribute to my predecessor but one, Lord Margadale of Islay, who had a distinguished record of service in that regiment and in the House. I am the first Member of Parliament for Salisbury for many years who has not served in the forces. My predecessor, Sir Michael Hamilton, did so with distinction.
However, that tradition brings with it a penalty, as I suspect that I am the only hon Member who, upon winning one's seat in a general election, must appear on the balcony of the local hostelry, the White Hart, the morning after and sing a song. Appropriately, it is the marching song of the Wiltshire regiment, "The Vly be on the Turmut". I shall not sing it tonight, Madam Speaker: I shall wait until next May. I believe that "Erskine May" would have something to say if I were tempted down that path.
I congratulate the Bill teams in the Ministry of Defence who have worked particularly hard this year. Those of us who serve on the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill know just how hard they work. There is some cross-linkage between this complicated Bill and that legislation. I suspect that that fact will be examined in Committee, as we must address several points.
I am grateful to the Minister's Bill team for providing some guidance on the subject and for pointing out that the provisions of the two Bills are linked. The general liability of reservists for worldwide service on call-out or recall is restricted in clauses 51 and 67 of the Reserve Forces Bill to allow for the existence in future of former regulars who had been engaged for local service as provided under clause 2 of the Armed Forces Bill. The effect is that, unless they elect otherwise, those individuals will, when called out or recalled, be liable to serve only in the area in which they were liable to serve as a regular. That provision anticipates, but does not rely upon, clause 2 of the Armed Forces Bill. That is a very important point that I believe sets a new precedent.
In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of the cadet units and the rifle and aviation clubs which are regulated under the Bill. They add to the sense of community among the forces across the country. We are very proud of our reserve forces and their ancient history. They provide comradeship and make for a richer society, which extends to bands, marching songs and to Members of Parliament singing "The Vly be on the Turmut".

Mr. John Spellar: This has been a well-informed debate on both sides, with a considerable amount of common ground, which is not always a feature of debates in this place. There is a common desire to constrain red tape—I hope that the Minister has taken that


on board—and a recognition of the role of the reserve forces, with special reference to the reserve associations, as a bridge between military and civilian societies.
We must maintain understanding of those differing roles, particularly in the light of the abolition of national service and the disappearance from the House of many hon. Members who saw service during the last war. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to the role of the Combined Cadet Force—I get the feeling that service in the CCF will soon distinguish one in this place. It is important to ensure that there is a degree of understanding.
There is also a recognition of the need to update the legislation, and that need arises from the transformation of defence commitments and social and economic conditions in our society, not least the changing patterns of work. The legislation will have to address the casualisation of labour and new flexibility in working patterns, however regrettable we think those changes are. The legislation will go some way towards addressing that. As was stressed by a number of hon. Members during the debate, a change in the attitude and culture of employers will be needed and will be an important part of the continuing work on the Bill.
I realise that the Minister was constrained by time in opening the debate, but I hope that in his reply or in Committee he will be able to develop the philosophy and doctrine behind the Department's view of the role of the reserves. I hope that we shall not have the mass of amendments in Committee that there were in another place, unless the Whips allow the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) his desire to sit on the Committee.
I suspect that it would be not only the Opposition who would be concerned if the reserves were seen by the MOD or by the Treasury as a substitute rather than a supplement for the regular forces. If the thin red line were stretched even thinner and the gaps were to be filled somehow by the reserves, that would be a matter of concern, and we need some assurance from the Minister on that.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) drew our attention to a parliamentary answer on the shortfall in a number of regiments. I am glad that he did, because I tabled the original question and the matter is of concern to people in many areas.
We shall also need to assess the balance of roles and responsibility between the regulars and the reserves. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the role of reserves in the snow emergency. That was important and welcome, but the prime role of the reserve forces should not be as a substitute for the emergency services. The prime role of the reserves, it must be stressed, has to be as a reserve for the armed forces. The Government should not see the reserves as substitutes to do the real work that needs to be undertaken by the emergency services, including ambulances and the fire brigade.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he envisages the Regular Army becoming a more cadreised force or whether we shall maintain a strong and effective Regular Army. What assessment has the Department made of the cost-effectiveness of the balance between reserve forces and regular forces? Will the Department continue to monitor that?
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) rightly stressed that we would not want to see the sponsored reserves as a cover for problems with contractorisation. There will be difficulties in moving some of the work to contractors because it will not then be undertaken under military discipline. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.
In the debate in another place, the question was raised of the pressure on individuals, who were seeking employment in their trade with a firm that would undertake work for the MOD, to join the sponsored reserves against their better will and judgment. I am sure that that would not be good for those individuals and, equally, the MOD would not wish to see conscription by the back door by those means. In the long term, that would make for unsatisfactory working relationships. We would welcome assurances from the Minister on that.

Mr. Brazier: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it is unreasonable for the MOD to insist that certain contracts go only to companies with a certain proportion of employees who have a reserve liability.

Mr. Spellar: The problem with that is that individuals might join the reserve forces to get the civilian job, in the hope and expectation that they would not then have to undertake the obligations of the reserve forces. That is a concern felt not just by the Opposition, but by those in the armed forces. We should be alert to that problem.
The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) raised the question whether the reserves will be brought into the forces as individuals or as a unit. If they come in as individuals, how will the necessary team feeling be built up? How much time will be required for the necessary training? My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) drew attention to the differences that we have compared with other countries, in the time taken for acclimatisation and assimilation.
We must also consider the difficulties in the transition from work in an industrial environment to work in a military environment. That is partly a question of discipline, as one or two hon. Members suggested, but it is also a question of working in different cultures. Often, it is easier to match competencies than to mix cultures. There are difficulties when different individuals come into a common working environment through different schemes. It will be a difficult job to engender the team feeling that is required in the armed forces, and it will require skill and competence.
We also wish to ask the Minister to consider the effect of the scheme on surge capacity. In many cases, the industrial establishment is seen as providing surge capacity in times of emergency. We must guard against the danger of double-counting that capacity and counting those who are part of the sponsored reserves as part of the industrial environment. We need to ensure that we have the right balance.
I hope that the legislation, the debates in the House and the arguments that will be put to employers will help to overcome employer resistance. I regard that resistance as extremely short-sighted. Those who undertake reserve training are able to bring to their work capabilities and qualities, not just in terms of competence but in their characters and experience. I hope that that message will go out loud and clear to employers tonight.
Some hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, raised the subject of medical staff. I was disappointed that the Minister did not cover that matter in his introduction, because it was raised many times in the other place. We realise that the military have problems with anaesthetists and other medical staff. Those problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East pointed out, reflect the shortages of those particular competencies in many health authorities. That is a broader aspect of the problem, which should be raised with the Secretary of State for Health, but it is not solved by various national health trusts seeking to put restrictions in contracts that do not permit their medical staff to join the reserves.
I hope that, after tonight's debate and the comments made by hon. Members from all parties, the Minister will press the Secretary of State for Health, possibly through the National Employer Liaison Committee, to make it clear that those trusts are expected to acknowledge their national obligations. It is outrageous that at a time when we are telling private sector employers that they should acknowledge their obligations to national defence, part of the public sector is falling down on those obligations—not only implicitly but, in some cases, according to the British Medical Association, explicitly—and preventing qualified staff from serving their country. I hope that that point will be the subject of interdepartmental discussions.
The various consultation documents that preceded this legislation had a long gestation—as did the draft Bill—and, in many cases, they outlined the historic and honourable role of the reserve forces in our past. The Opposition hope—and I think I speak for the House—that the Bill will enable the reserves to continue that role, reinvigorated and updated, into the next millennium. We welcome the Bill and will give it positive consideration in Committee.

Mr. Soames: With the leave of the House, Madam Speaker. I listened with great interest to the extremely well-informed points made during a knowledgeable debate unusually marked by a sense of common purpose—something we could use more of in such debates. I shall try to answer some of the questions raised, and will deal with others in writing or in Committee.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) paid a warm tribute to the reserve forces. As to concerns about administrative support, that is carefully judged to maximise the time that volunteers can spend training—which is obviously their highest priority. I shall study the hon. Gentleman's figures in Hansard, but I have to say that I do not recognise them. I agree that all such schemes depend on effective and efficient reimbursement patterns, and I accept that they have not always been effective in the past. I warmly endorse the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the Territorial Army, and about the splendid service given by the Welsh, and the many Territorial soldiers, sailors and airmen in Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made a typically splendid and well-informed contribution in his capacity as an Honorary Air Commodore and Honorary Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. He made an extremely interesting speech and offered an informed history of the

RAAF. I agreed with all his points and noted particularly his remarks about the frustration felt by auxiliaries at the time of the Gulf war. As my right hon. Friend knows, not only the auxiliaries were frustrated. I agree that it is extremely important to show employers that all the time, care and attention that they devote in allowing employees time off to take part in the reservists scheme is reflected at a time of national crisis and emergency, so that individuals whose skills they have carefully nurtured will be allowed on the field of honour, or as close to it as they are able to get. Employers should be able to see that the employees whom they help can exercise their skills. I was delighted to hear that the auxiliaries are doing so well. I warmly and unreservedly praise, admire and pay tribute to their splendid contribution—as does the whole House.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—who informed me that he would have to leave before the end of the debate—for highlighting the extraordinary care taken in consulting on the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) was also good enough to acknowledge. That consultation is a model for future practice, and other Departments could follow Ministry of Defence practice in this case, as in so many others. I hope that future legislation will be the subject of detailed consultation, so that it reaches the House after extensive pre-consideration.
The hon. Members for Swansea, East and for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and many other hon. Members mentioned the medical reserves, and that it is difficult to fill some places. As the hon. Member for Warley, West said, health service trusts are struggling because there are serious shortages in some specialties. We need to keep a close eye on that aspect, and I am sure that we shall return to it in Committee.
I am extremely grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) in relation to the nine-month call-out. That was a matter of contention in the other place and was thoroughly debated. I believe that the consensus that it reached on a nine-month engagement was right. I was grateful also for the broad endorsement that the House gave that arrangement this evening. I agree with my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as colonel of a Territorial regiment and from his personal knowledge as a soldier, that all training should be as exciting as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made the point that simulation allows formed units to do so much more training together, and I hope that the TA will be able to take advantage of it. Last weekend, I visited a company in the Mid-Sussex constituency that makes extraordinarily advanced simulation systems that will completely recast artillery training—I hope greatly to the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). The TA will be able to book training of a kind that it has never had the opportunity to undergo before.
The one-army concept is extremely important, and all who have care of or an interest in the reserves will know that the Ministry of Defence minds very much that it should become reality. I personally take on board all reservations expressed, as requiring extra effort on our part to ensure that the one-army concept becomes reality.
I listened carefully to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton and others about Territorial Army senior appointments. We are aware of the benefit to be gained from additional senior appointments for reservists. I announced to the House last year that two additional one-star posts would be open to volunteers. My right hon. and hon. Friends forcefully expressed their well-informed views on additional officers at two-star level, and I assure them that the matter is always under consideration. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement shortly.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made an extremely well-informed speech, as usual, and I share his view that the Bill represents an exciting departure. Morale in the reserves depends on where one is and what one is doing. I have seen morale sky high in some places, and in others I have seen people unsure of the future. The Bill will be an important addition and a new departure for the reserves, who bring a remarkable, important and irreplaceable speciality to the field of operations. I noted the hon. and learned Gentleman's points about the high-readiness reserves, medical reserves and health service trusts, which were made also by other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is extremely well informed on the subject. I accept the importance of using formed units whenever possible, and noted with care my hon. Friend's remarks about using the sponsored reserves in flight training operations as uniformed personnel. I shall carefully consider that good point. If I may be indiscreet, I hope that my hon. Friend will not fret too much about the Royal Marine Reserve.
I acknowledge the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). I met members of the Prince of Wales Own formed sub-unit detached to Split, who are doing a splendid job and are in great heart. I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for York, who made a positive and well-informed contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) also made an extremely well-informed speech, as one would expect, on medical reserves and two-star appointments. In view of my hon. Friend's single-service predilection for the Royal Air Force—for which we all make allowances, given his service—I was grateful for his support for the sponsored reserves. My hon. Friend the Member for North

Tayside (Mr. Walker) made a brief but well-informed speech and I am grateful for his warm welcome to the Bill.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon for his kind words. I am glad to say that he will not have to go through the trauma that he described again on re-enlistment—next time, I shall personally supervise his call-up. I thank and praise him for his splendid service. I noted his points about Overseas Development Administration, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence liaison and about training. I should be grateful if he discussed them further with me.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for all his support for the services on Salisbury plain. As my hon. Friend knows, lord-lieutenants are great and noble beasts and they deserve a declaratory clause. Quite what it is for, I do not know—but I shall let my hon. Friend know later. He paid tribute to my noble Friend Lord Margadale, than whom there was no greater servant of this House and for whom we all have huge respect. I share my hon. Friend's respect for the Bill team and for all who have made an important contribution to the debate. I thank them all, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — RESERVE FORCES BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified࠸

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of࠸

(1)any sums required by the Secretary of State with respect to—

(a) payments of pay, bounty and allowances to members of the reserve forces;

(2)any other expenditure of a Minister of the Crown (including that of the Defence Council) incurred in consequence of the Act; and
(3)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money provided by Parliament.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — City of Westminster Bill [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 December].

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[Sir Michael Shersby.]

Question again proposed.

7 pm

Sir Michael Shersby: I shall explain briefly my interest in the Bill and the history of its provisions.
My interest goes back to the days between 1964 and 1971, when I was a city councillor, and to 1967–68, when I was deputy Lord Mayor of the city. During that period, the activity of sex shops in the Soho area of the city was becoming a real problem. It is still a problem today and it needs to be addressed in the Bill.
The Bill is promoted by Westminster city council, which complied with all the statutory requirements and the Standing Order requirements for the Bill. It was deposited in November 1993 and was allocated to originate in the other place. There were no petitions in the other place, and the Bill then came into the House on 14 June 1994. There was no objection to its Second Reading and there were no petitions against it. The Bill was carried over to the 1994࠷95 Session by resolution of the House, and following an adjournment of the Unopposed Bills Committee for further written submissions to be made in support of part III. The Committee approved the Bill on 20 October 1994.
The Bill was then blocked by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and several other hon. Members at the consideration stage in the House, and amendments to the Bill were tabled.
A debate on amendments took place on 26 June 1995. A point of order was raised just before 10 pm, and it did not prove possible to move the closure motion. There was no parliamentary time available to resume the debate before the end of the parliamentary Session. Nor was it possible to obtain a carry-over motion before the end of the Session, as that was also blocked. The Bill is therefore technically dead pending this debate on the revival motion.
The Bill is divided into three parts and deals with two totally separate topics that bear no relationship to each other. Part I simply deals with the short title and interpretation. Part II proposes additional provisions to supplement those contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as amended by the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1986, to control unlicensed sex establishments.
Westminster council has a particular problem, as Soho is within its area. The Bill would give the council additional powers to close unlicensed premises. Although existing powers allow the prosecution of operators of such premises and the seizure of goods and equipment found on them, experience has shown that such premises are routinely restocked and reopened within a matter of hours. Moreover, such premises are invariably run by what I can only call front men, whose identities change from week to week. Prosecution of such persons is not therefore effective in preventing the operation of the premises.
Part II would enable the council to obtain a closure order from a magistrates court, which would stop the premises continuing to be used as unlicensed sex premises.
Part III seeks to release the city council from its statutory duty to build a county primary school on a site at Moxon street in the city of Westminster.
I understand that it is to that particular provision that the hon. Member for Leyton objects. His concerns relate to the future use of the site. Were the Bill to obtain its revival motion, the city council would consider deleting part III to allow further time to seek a resolution to the current impasse.
I can assure the House and the hon. Member for Leyton that the motion, if agreed to, as I trust it shall be, will provide an early opportunity for him to meet members and officers of the city council to discuss these matters before resumed procedures on the Bill take place.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I have been an objector to the Bill and to this carry-over motion, appearing every Thursday at 2.30 pm to shout "Object". Indeed, when the Bill was last debated on the Floor of the House, last June, I spoke for two and a half hours, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak at length tonight. I simply want to give a summary of some of the issues and where we are from my point of view in relation to the Bill, and, indeed, to give a warning shot that if we do not made progress the House might have to have lengthy sessions on it again in future. I hope that we can make some progress and achieve a settlement that benefits the university of Westminster and addresses the concerns in relation to sex shops legislation.
Westminster city council has been slow to do either of those things. It seems to think that it can steamroller Parliament into passing the Bill without having to account for the reasons behind it or without considering the implications that would come from such a change in the law. Apart from the three-hour session in June about the university of Westminster, the Bill has not been considered by Parliament. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) said, it passed virtually all its stages without discussion.
I shall say a few words about the carry-over motion. Normally, Bills that are not completed at the end of a parliamentary Session will fall, but there is an exception with private Bills, for which there is a carry-over procedure. Because of the exception for private Bills, the onus is on the promoters to resolve the differences if they want the Bill to be carried forward and get on the statute book. I know that there is a cost to the Bill's promoter, and that is why the motion says at the end:
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
There are also costs to the public purse, and my time and that of other hon. Members on top of that. I think that the Government have to keep about 100 of their Members here just in case the closure was moved. That adds up to a lot of time, let alone the cost of running the House. I know that we cannot amend the motion to say that in these circumstances the promoter should pay the proper costs, but if it could be amended those costs would be considerable.
I tabled a parliamentary question to the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee last December about the estimated cost of the House on a sitting day. The reply said:
It is not practical to allocate the majority of House costs as between sitting and non-sitting days. The outturn for the financial year ended 31 March 1995 for the Works and the Administration votes, that is. excluding Members' pay and allowances, was £102,256,000. There were 158 sitting days in that year. Further information is given in the Commission's annual report."—[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 848.];
If we divide the £102,256,000 by the 158 sitting days, we come up with a figure of £647,189.87 per day. A debate such as this, taking up three hours of parliamentary time, will cost the public purse £242,696.19—and that does not include the cost of the time of the hon. Members involved. Westminster city council will not be reimbursing that cost. As I said earlier, it is incumbent on the promoter to resolve any differences, so that parliamentary time and public money are not wasted.
I demonstrated my willingness to reach agreement on the Bill, and I think that Westminster city council was rather taken aback by that. I think that it had assumed that it would get its way automatically by using Conservative Members as Lobby fodder to bludgeon the Bill through. Perhaps it would even have preferred outright opposition from me, and from other hon. Members. I have tried to be reasonable, however. I have told the council that it can have its Bill, but that it must provide educational benefit for the university of Westminster. After all, the Moxon street land referred to in clause 9 was given to the council for educational use. I have taken a flexible attitude to the way in which educational benefit can be secured; for some time, the ball has been in the council's court.
On 18 December, I met Councillor Robert Moreland and a senior council official. I suggested that the council should come up with a package of benefits for the university, and that it should be prepared to deal with the sex shop issue. I said that I would not oppose the Bill on the basis of the sex shop legislation as long as the implications were discussed.
Since that meeting I have heard nothing from the council. On 14 March, however, Jonathan Bracken of Dyson Bell Martin, parliamentary agents for the university, wrote to me saying:
So far as I am aware, no further progress has been made between the City Council and the University of Westminster concerning the Moxon Street site but should you need any further information please do not hesitate to let me know.
Notwithstanding our three-hour debate in June and the meeting that I attended in December, no progress towards a settlement is being made, although we are approaching the end of March. As I think the House will agree, such a settlement is achievable.

Sir Michael Shersby: I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me assure the House that, if the revival motion is carried, Westminster city council would like to meet him again to try to resolve the outstanding issues before further consideration of the Bill. The council has made that clear.

Mr. Cohen: I welcome that assurance. I had hoped that we would make progress at the December meeting rather than simply laying out our positions again—although that may be an unfortunate phrase, given that the Bill deals with sex shops.
Eight of the Bill's nine clauses deal with sex shops; the ninth deals with the land at Moxon street, near Marylebone. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge pointed out, it has nothing to do with sex shops and everything to do with property speculation. The land was given to Westminster city council—free of charge—by the London residuary body following the demise of the Inner London education authority, for educational purposes. There is an argument about that. The council says—this suits its purposes—that it must build a school on the land, and I submit that it would be within its rights if it used the land for educational purposes. In any event, however, the land was handed over to the council for educational use.
The problem is that, once clause 9 becomes law and that obligation is lifted, the land will inevitably go to a property speculator. In a free market, the university could not possibly bid as much as a property speculator for prime-site land in central London. Indeed, in my three-hour speech last year, I pointed out that such a deal had already been lined up between Westminster city council and property dealers. It would mean that public education would be left out in the cold.
I have made it clear that the university of Westminster would make the best use of the land. According to its mission statement,
The mission of the University of Westminster is to be the leading provider in the capital city of high quality accessible portfolio of higher education and associated strategic research".
The same document tells us:
The University has a unique profile with 9,000 full-time students, 12,000 part-time students and 20,000 students who attend mid-career short courses. Seventy-five per cent. of the full time student population comes from London, mainly inner London. and all the part-time and mid-career population comprise those who live and work in London. Fifty-nine per cent. of the full time and part-time student population is mature (ie aged 21+ on entry) reflecting the diversity of background the University serves. Over 40 per cent. of the students come from ethnic minorities, the highest of any University in Britain. The University provides education in all subject areas, science, engineering, humanities, business, management, languages, law, art and design, with the exception of medicine and initial teacher training.


The university does an excellent job for the varied population of London, but it suffers from severe problems. It is run from 22 different addresses, and 30 per cent. of its floor space is leased. Many of the leases are now coming to an end. It suffers more than the average amount of building and estate costs, for which it is not reimbursed and for which it is often criticised by the Department for Education and Employment. Its strategy is to secure and operate from five large sites by the year 2000. It has already identified three sites in Westminster, and has had to build a further site in Harrow. Moxon street would be the ideal location for the fifth site, but Westminster's failure to come up with a suitable package is blocking progress.
Referring to the carry-over motion, the promoter says in its statement to the House:
Westminster City Council is the Local Education Authority within the City. Clause 9 seeks to relieve the Council of its statutory duty to build a primary school pursuant to section 12(9) of the Education Act 1980 on a site at Moxon Street in the City.
The Promoters are concerned that the considerable amount of time, effort and public money which have been expended on this Bill should not be wasted.
I agree with that. That is why the promoter should have saved the time of Parliament and of hon. Members by reaching an agreement that would benefit the university of Westminster.
I should like to consider the sex shop aspects of the Bill. Four points need to be dealt with. I am sorry to do that, but I shall deal with them in summary form because, clearly, this is not the time for a full debate. That will be take place if the Bill comes back before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we are debating a revival motion and this is not the time to go into detail. That may happen if the Bill returns.

Mr. Cohen: I understand that. If we make no progress, I will have to go into the matter in considerable detail. That is why I want to summarise the issues. I hope that they will be dealt with by the Bill's promoter.
First, the Bill is meant to deal with unlicensed sex shops, but no proof has been presented to the House that there is a problem with provision on such shops. I am sure that there are unlicensed sex shops and that they are a nuisance, but where is the evidence that existing law is not sufficient to deal with them? I am not saying that there is no problem, but that evidence should have been produced by the Bill's promoter. When it wrote to me initially in October 1994, the Gay Business Association said:
At present, if the local authority are of the opinion that premises require a licence then they can prosecute the premises for trading without the benefit of a licence.
It would appear that the City of Westminster has not availed themselves of this power to any great extent and yet they now seek a radical extension of their powers".
I wonder why existing law has not been used. Again, I shall not go into great detail, but in July I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department asking him to
list all legislation under which unauthorised sex shops and sex cinemas can be prosecuted; and how many prosecutions under each provision there have been in the last five years."—[Official Report, 13 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 689.]

I will not go through it in detail, but the Home Secretary's answer gives a great list of the various provisions.

Mr. Don Dixon: There are not enough laws covering that.

Mr. Cohen: I will not read out the Home Secretary's answer, but I should like to mention the different provisions in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 under which prosecutions may take place. They include schedule 3, paragraphs 20(a), (b), (c) and (d), 21, 22(1), 22(2), 23, 24(6)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the last thing the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to test my patience too far, but he knows that this debate is not for detail.

Mr. Cohen: I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating a carry-over motion. For that to be justified, the purpose of the Bill must be justified and evidence should have been presented to the House that there is a need for this legislation. I am just making a brief summary. There are existing legal powers. If Westminster council needs to go beyond those, it should produce the proof of why that is necessary. Other legislation is available apart from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, including the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which Westminster city council could use.
Having said that—this leads me to the second point—I have an open mind on whether there is a problem with unlicensed sex shops. I am waiting for the evidence to find out whether there is a problem. If there is, why does the Bill apply only to Westminster? I know that Soho is a major area for the sex industry, but it is not the only one. The problem is that unlicensed sex shops have, I understand, arisen in other parts of London. If the Bill is passed, such shops in Soho could easily spread to the rest of London. With the Bill, Westminster could be exporting Soho to other boroughs. Why should Westminster have powers that other boroughs do not have? The Bill just shifts the problem elsewhere.

Sir Michael Shersby: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the problem has been identified and is growing in Westminster. It has not been identified elsewhere.

Mr. Cohen: Again, we have not received the evidence for that statement. The Member for Uxbridge is an honourable gentleman and I believe his word, but we are passing important legislation here and we should receive evidence of that statement. If we had a strategic council for the whole of London, all the London implications could be considered, instead of legislation being introduced in such a piecemeal fashion for just one borough.
The third point about sex shops is that councillors and officers have strong, excessive powers. If the Bill is enacted, they will have greater powers than the police or Customs and Excise. That should be explained. At the meeting, I asked for explanations of all those points and I did not receive them. That is why we are at the stage of the carry-over motion.
There is a danger of councillors and officers having excessive powers. They could decide what is acceptable. With a shallow standard of proof, they could close a


business, which would have to stay closed until an appeal could be heard. A legitimate business could go broke in that time, even though sex material might be only a small proportion of its business—perhaps one book that was deemed to be pornographic. That is not right.
There is much potential for intimidation, perhaps even corruption—a form of official protection—if a councillor or an officer of Westminster council were unscrupulous. Under the Bill, newsagents could suffer because the magazines that they display on their top shelves might be deemed to be pornographic. Under these powers, they could be closed and they would have to stay closed until an appeal was heard.
There could be discrimination against gay cafés and bars. That brings me to the fourth and final point in relation to sex shops. The Gay Business Association wrote to me expressing concern that the legislation could be used in a homophobic way. Under the Bill, an officer or councillor of Westminster council could close gay businesses in Soho and elsewhere that they might not like.
I raised those four aspects in the December meeting, when I said that Westminster city council should come up with some answers. A hidden aspect of the legislation is that the licence fee could soar with consequent implications. Only rich pornographers might be able pay the licence fee that Westminster city council has in mind. We could be heading towards a monopoly. That implication should be considered. All those matters are worthy of Parliament's consideration, as is the Government's general attitude to the sex industry.
The Government seem to face both ways at once on the sex industry. On the one hand, they favour deregulation and liberalisation—cable television is allowed to show many sex programmes—but on the other hand, they have a knee-jerk reaction against obscenity without defining obscenity. The Bill is cashing in on that.
To conclude, there are genuine points in the Bill that need to be addressed, but I repeat: Westminster city council can have its Bill. I shall not block it completely, provided the points that I have made are addressed and taken into account in future legislation.
In particular, the university of Westminster should be properly treated. I should have thought that that would be a matter of civic pride for Westminster city council. My area has a lowly football club, Leyton Orient, and it is a matter of civic pride that I as a Member of Parliament and local councillors do our best by that club. We want it to thrive.
Westminster city council has a superb university—I have read out what it does—yet the council seems to show no civic pride in helping it to thrive. I am amazed at that. Public education should not be left to rot because of market economics whereby land goes to property speculators to use for their own purposes.
That is my case. I have abbreviated it. I have endeavoured not to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Bill comes to the Floor of the House, that will be the right time for me to go into those matters in more detail. However, I have made clear my willingness to do a deal and I hope that Westminster city council will now pick up on that and reach a deal that benefits the university of Westminster.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I rise briefly to show my support and that of my colleagues in the Government for the measure. Sex shops in Westminster do pose a problem. I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has an open mind on that. I do not. I know that there is a problem. I have seen some of the products that those shops sell. They cater for all kinds of perversions—coprophilia, bestiality, violent torture and all sorts of means of degrading women, a tide of filth about which we must do something.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Sackville: No, I shall not give way.
I am sorry that on a previous occasion on another part of the Bill the hon. Gentleman felt obliged to block this important legislation.
I stress that, as a matter of public policy, we wish to control the trade in this appalling material which is getting worse all the time. Westminster city council needs the powers and I hope that the Bill will be brought back to the House and become law.

Mr. Alun Michael: I share the Minister's hope that the Bill will return and receive rapid support. However, the Bill's promoter needs to take note of tonight's debate and the points that have been made. If it listens to what has been said, a great deal of time will be saved. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) acknowledged that in introducing the motion tonight and showed some recognition of the need to respond to the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
I would say, for the benefit of the promoter, that I have some experience of the extent to which a private Bill can be delayed, however valuable and positive a measure it is, by one or two hon. Members who fail to understand its virtues. It took some eight years for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill to become law. It would be wise if those assisting Westminster city council with the Bill—some of whom shared that experience—accepted that listening now and persuading my hon. Friend and any others who might be inclined to object that their concerns can be addressed would help us when the Bill comes before the House for a proper debate, as opposed to today's revival motion.
I understand that there are limits in the statement that can be made formally on behalf of promoters, but the statement that we received was quite lightweight. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton is right to say that it did not make the case, which I assume is strong and which I believe is accepted on both sides of Westminster city council because the Bill has general support. It would be sensible to ensure that that case is made before the next and substantive debate.
It is wise, as I was advised on one occasion, to regard hon. Members not as remote gods to be propitiated but as individuals who seek to represent their constituents and with whom a sensible discussion can be had. My hon. Friend made the point that he had met the promoter back in December, but there was then no response to the issues that he raised with the council.
I have been given an undertaking similar to that given to the hon. Member for Uxbridge earlier, that my hon. Friend will be offered a full opportunity to discuss those issues and, if possible, for his concerns to be met. That would be greatly to the assistance of the House, enabling us to debate only the issues that are within the Bill which, in general, seem positive and helpful.
There is one issue which I hope, when we debate the Bill in substance, the promoter and, more important, the Minister will have addressed—the question whether there is a danger of displacement from Westminster to elsewhere if these powers are given to Westminster city council but not to other councils. The Minister, in his reference to the unacceptability of some of the activities that go on, is right, but there should not be the likelihood of displacement as a result of the powers. I hope that the Minister will anticipate and address that point when we debate the measure in a substantive debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.

Orders of the Day — Public Health

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): It may be helpful if I were to advise the House on the scope of the debate. The debate should address the desirability of restricting the taking, movement and use of fish, edible plants and edible seaweed from the sea area defined in the schedule to the order and, in that context, could include discussion of the repercussions of the Sea Empress disaster.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): I beg to move,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 448), dated 28th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
The order prohibits all fishing activities in the area designated in it which is or may be affected by oil and other chemical pollutants as a result of the grounding of the oil tanker Sea Empress.
The order also prohibits the harvesting of edible seaweeds—laver, dulse and carrageen—and a plant commonly known as samphire or glasswort.
The laying of the order is the first of two which have had to be made as a result of the oil spillage.
Yesterday, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I made an order prohibiting fishing for salmon and sea trout in all water courses and rivers that discharge to the coast affected by sea fishery restrictions. The angling season for those fish was due to start today, but as a precautionary measure, my right hon. Friend decided to impose restrictions until we can be certain that consuming such fish will not be a health risk.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does that order apply to the whole length of the river or only the tidal part?

Mr. Richards: Clearly, it applies to the tidal part because we are talking about migrating fish.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's concern in placing the ban on fishing was to protect consumers—the purpose of the parent legislation, the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
I am extremely grateful to local fishermen, who have shown great concern for the consumer and respect for their industry since the incident occurred by immediately arranging a voluntary ban on fishing in the area affected by the spillage.
The Government took immediate action to investigate the extent of pollution and its impact on fisheries. The sea fisheries inspectorate at Milford Haven, assisted by local fishermen's groups, took samples of fish and shellfish to pass to the directorate of fisheries research at Burnham on Crouch for urgent analysis. The fisheries protection vessel, Corystes, was also diverted to the area to help with the sampling programme.
In the early days of the spillage, it was known that much of the oil would be dispersed into the water column to a considerable depth. Fish metabolise petroleum hydrocarbons quite quickly and the testing regime was set


up to measure the level of hydrocarbons in order to assess how far the effects of the spillage had dispersed. The movement and spread of oil was constantly monitored and we took statutory action to protect consumers as soon as scientific advice showed the need for a statutory ban.
On 28 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced statutory restrictions in an area of about 810 square miles from St. David's head to Port-Eynon point on the Gower peninsula. The size of the designated area is based on scientific advice, and the extent of the spillage and its likely effect on commercial fisheries. It was recommended, therefore, that the order should encompass St. Bride's bay, Milford Haven and Carmarthen bay.
It has been put to me that the designated area should have been extended for a short period so that a testing regime could have cleared the area not affected by the spillage. That would not have been legally possible. I could not make an order affecting an area unless there was evidence that we were satisfied that food from that area was unsuitable for human consumption. That was not the case, so the area defined conforms with legal requirements. We need to consider carefully all the options. We may be able to reduce the restricted area, or remove restrictions from particular species, or a combination of the two. We shall keep that under review.
The testing is a highly complex matter. Not only must we consider absolute levels of hydrocarbons, but we need to test for traces of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. PAHs are resistant to degradation and some are known as suspected human carcinogens. Tests for them are complex and time-consuming. I assure the House that throughout the period before the statutory restrictions were imposed, we maintained close and continuous contact with the industry, which acted with restraint and control in adhering to its self-imposed ban on fishing.
The controls that we have introduced are being enforced with the assistance of the environmental health departments of the local authorities—South Pembrokeshire, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen and Llanelli—the Milford Haven port health authority, and officers of the South Wales sea fisheries committee who have been authorised to supplement the enforcement role of the sea fisheries inspectorate. I pay tribute to the untiring effort that all those bodies have put in to help mitigate the damage caused by the incident. Enforcement on the ground is being enhanced by sea fisheries inspectorate surveillance flights over the area and visits of Royal Navy fisheries protection vessels in the affected area.
Hon. Members will doubtless be concerned to know how long the restrictions will last. I have to be honest and say that I cannot yet provide a definitive answer because it is simply too soon. We are continually monitoring the situation and will lift restrictions as soon as we have evidence that it is safe to do so. To that end, we shall continue vigorously with our scientific programme.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Before the Minister moves off that point and the imposition of the order, will he explain why only 77 hours after the Braer ran aground

at 11.18 on 5 January 1993, an order identical to the one before the House was imposed—at 4 pm on 8 January? Why was a similar order not imposed with such alacrity following the Sea Empress incident? If it had, we would not have been dependent on the fishermen's voluntary action, which I, too, applaud. The vessel ran aground on 15 February, so why did we have to wait until 28 February before the order was imposed?

Mr. Richards: As I have already explained, such an order can be made only on the basis of scientific evidence and in the interests of the public or the consumer on health grounds. It cannot be made on any other grounds. As the hon. Gentleman has said, we were obviously fortunate to have the full support and co-operation of the fishing industry.
Since I have been diverted from my brief, perhaps I could correct an answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) a moment ago. The order for freshwater fisheries in fact applies to the entire length of the rivers concerned.
The possibility of further contamination from large quantities of dispersed oil remains, as does the possibility of a remobilisation of beached and landed oil. We are carefully monitoring and sampling to establish how the situation develops. The present cold weather means that the fish are not feeding very vigorously. Such activity will increase as seawater temperature rises and could conceivably lead to a greater intake of pollution from oil contained in the water column. We need therefore to move forward judiciously. Careful attention has to be given to every complex aspect of the passage of contamination, and I make no apologies for our cautious approach.
I am naturally concerned about the welfare of fishermen and the future of their industry. One of our main concerns is to ensure that public and market opinion about the quality of Welsh fish is put into perspective. It is important that the message is quite clear that Welsh fish coming on to the market is safe to eat. We shall explore with the fishing industry and others ways in which we can inform the public and trade interests of the fitness of Welsh fish. The subject could form part of our bid for European funding, and we shall discuss with the Commission ways in which we can enhance the promotion and marketing of the Welsh seafood industry.
The insurers of the Sea Empress have assured us that they will immediately meet the claims of hardship cases. They have set up a claims handling office in Milford Haven, and funds have been made available to make immediate payments. By late this morning, nine claims had been received from the fishing industry. These, I am told, are being urgently considered and will be processed as quickly as possible.
Claims office staff are working hard to ensure that agreement is reached with claimants as quickly as possible, although the latest information I have is that some claimants are experiencing difficulties with the international oil compensation fund. It is an issue that I shall raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see what the Government can do about this intergovernmental agreement.
I am happy to give an assurance that we shall remove controls as soon as we can, but I make no apologies for saying that restrictions will remain in force for as long as necessary to ensure the continuing protection of


consumers and the preservation of the reputation of the Welsh fishing industry from any threat from contaminated food. At the end of the day, that is and must remain our overriding priority.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for the Opposition. I must say at the outset that I was pleased to see a map appended to the Welsh Office press release of 28 February, but I was a little disappointed that the map was not appended to the order available in the Vote Office.
Being a geographer, I want to query one small point relating to the order's designated area schedule for the longitude of St. David's head. The Royal Geographical Society, of which I am pleased to be a fellow, disputes the location given in the schedule, but I shall not go into too much detail about the ability of the Welsh Office to ensure that the correct location is given. The longitudinal location of St. David's head is 5 deg 18 minutes 40 seconds west, not as appears in the schedule.
The closure order has been met with considerable dismay in south-west Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) put his finger on a reason for part of the dissatisfaction, which is that in 1993 the Scottish Office issued a closure order within 48 hours of the Braer going aground. The order that we are debating was certainly introduced hastily, without consultation and at one hour's notice, but it was issued some 14 days after the Sea Empress ran aground.
There is a strong impression locally that, having barged and blustered in and out of the crisis for 14 days, and having at last realised that people are incensed at the apparent confusion over responsibility, the Government, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office, decided that they had better do something—anything—to show that they were in control. Unfortunately, MAFF and the Welsh Office have lost considerable credibility and the confidence of fishermen in this crisis. I assure the House that the people of west Wales—not only fishermen but traders, hoteliers and ordinary people—are absolutely furious at the way in which this incident has been handled from start to finish.
What has emerged from my mail bag and from meeting people in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire is that local people have absolutely no confidence in a Government who have failed to take on board lessons learnt from the Braer disaster in 1993 and who have dithered and delayed over implementation the recommendations of the Donaldson report. People have no confidence in the port authorities, the salvagers or the marine pollution control unit, which are jointly accused of a lack of communication, of critical indecision and of misjudgment in dealing with the ship and failing to protect the environment from the oil spillage. They believe that the environmental impact has been much greater than it need have been and that a cover-up is taking place. That is why they call for a public inquiry and why we continue to do so.
This week the clean-up operation is being wound down, although 200 men are still working on the beaches. The sea is reported to be clear of oil, although around 50,000 tonnes are probably still sloshing around in the water column and in sediments. The Royal Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' bird centre is being closed, although it is still expected that many dead, oiled birds will be washed ashore. Many of Pembrokeshire's famous sandy beaches look clean again, although sand castles are likely to be black for a while yet, and internationally precious species have been destroyed, endangered or destabilised.
Now that the shock of the environmental impact has been absorbed, however, attention has to be fixed on the economic impact of the disaster. Fishermen in Milford have experienced their fourth week without income. The tourist industry expects a 25 per cent. fall in bookings, which will have a serious knock-on effect on trade and income in the area. One of the reasons for the local dismay about the closure order is the effect that it will have on the recreational fishing and tourist industries.
No one quite understands why the order has been applied to recreational angling. Usually, controls and regulations relate to commercial enterprises. The European Community directive on licences for bivalve mollusc taking, for example, relates specifically to commercial operations. If a private individual wants to catch and eat shellfish from directly under a sewer, he is free to do so. If he becomes ill, it is his responsibility. Many recreational anglers return their catch. No hotelier is going to buy black market fish which may well taste of oil. It seems that this important sector of the local economy will best be able to organise itself.
Certainly, I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the fact that anglers and their suppliers of, for example, charter boats and tackle are extremely angry that their sport and livelihood is being penalised in this way and that there is a good case to remain for removing recreational angling from the order.
Given the scale of the disaster, and setting aside environmental, conservation and ecology issues, the Government must take on board two matters relating to fishing interests. The first is public health and the second is the long-term protection of the fish and shellfish markets.
While there is some concern about the effects on fish and the marine ecology of the cocktail of chemical dispersants used, no one to whom I have spoken thinks that there are serious immediate public health safety implications. The consensus seems to be that as fish and shellfish affected by oil acquire the taste of that oil, no one is going to eat enough to become seriously ill. In any case, local authorities, through their environmental health duties, are always closely monitoring the public health safety situation in their areas.
To protect the market, we need to ensure that no fish that go on sale are tainted by the taste of oil so that the perception and reputation of local fish as wholesome and clean is maintained. The voluntary ban by local fishermen, as the Minister has acknowledged, was the courageous, practical and immediate first step to securing that confidence in the market. The tasting panel facility at Torry will be invaluable in maintaining that position.
Locally, it is widely felt that the Welsh Office did not need to impose the closure order, especially at such a late stage. Although continuing the voluntary ban would have imposed too much responsibility on a small group of the community, the Welsh Office could have asked local authorities to take on responsibility for protecting public health and market credibility in their areas.
It is clear that local authorities are best placed to cope with the situation. Swansea, Llanelli and Preseli Pembrokeshire councils had already undertaken the procedures that are legally necessary to implement local measures to control fishing in their areas. The councils have public and environmental health powers that would have covered their areas perfectly adequately to protect the public health and safety requirement.
Council environmental health departments, the National Rivers Authority and the sea fisheries committee officers are undertaking much of the monitoring work that provides the basis for the MAFF and Welsh Office analysis of the situation. Under the closure order, local authorities, through their sea fisheries committees and environmental health units, will enforce the order. As the local councils will be informing and enforcing the order, I fail to see why, when local councils had the necessary powers, the order is required at all. I hope that it is nothing to do with the Welsh Office not wanting to pay for local authority help on a longer-term basis than the immediate clean-up.
On 21 February, the Welsh Office said that the imposition of a closure order would be "a draconian measure". Less than a week later, this order was imposed at an hour's notice by the Welsh Office. I agree with its original assessment: the order is draconian. It is a blunt instrument wielded in the dark. Everything about it shouts, "best guesstimate available". Yet families' livelihoods depend on such decisions.
The decision to impose the closure order cannot be justified because it was supposed to have been based on information from the monitoring of samples. It clearly was not. My understanding is that sampling results on 28 February did not show any pollution increases above background levels in most species or in the Milford Haven waterway. From that information, it follows that despite the delay in taking action and the breathing space to assess the situation that the fishermen's voluntary ban had given them, MAFF and the Welsh Office decided to make the order before they had reliable information on the effects of the spillage. For example, the most cursory examination of the order shows that the boundary defined in it can be described only as wholly arbitrary.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He says that the boundary described in the closure order was wholly arbitrary, but it is almost coterminous with the voluntary boundary imposed by the fishermen.

Mr. Wardell: Yes, indeed. I am delighted that the Welsh Office followed that guidance, but the boundary was not based on what the Minister said in the House. He said that it was based on scientific evidence. He now says that it was based on what the fishermen did. The change that he has admitted to the House shows clearly that the Welsh Office followed the boundary set by the fishermen without the scientific evidence that he says was legally necessary to define the boundary.
No one understands the rationale behind the defined offshore limits as anything other than a precautionary, catch-all MAFF and Welsh Office protective position. No one understands why north Devon and, especially, the area around Lundy have not been included in the order.
People in Swansea want to know whether, as North sea oil from the Forties field was recorded at Mumbles head and in Swansea bay last weekend, the boundary of the order will be extended. Why is the border south of Port Eynon point when the oil has reached further east than the currently enforced boundary? If, as seems likely with so much oil still suspended in the water column, further pollution sites are identified, will the order be varied again and again? If so, what is the mechanism for doing that? As I said, the boundary is arbitrary. If it is not, I hope that the Minister will place in the Library as soon as possible the exact sample results that enabled the line to be drawn. We look forward with interest to seeing the sample results from before 28 February that would give us confidence. The samples that I have seen do not lead to that conclusion.
How flexible will be the mechanism for lifting as soon as possible the prohibition on an area-by-area and a species-by-species basis? We want to know the mechanism and whether the Minister will give a commitment that he will lift the order area by area and species by species.
Although local authorities, the NRA, sea fisheries committee officers and MAFF are undertaking extensive monitoring of oil, water and fish, we cannot compare its results with experience and data from the Braer incident because MAFF is using a different indicator. They are using total hydrocarbons, as opposed to the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that were used after Braer. After the experience at Braer, we would hope that practically all species of fin fish will be untainted after about three months and that after perhaps 18 months, crabs and lobsters will be clear. The length of time that a species will take to recover depends on how badly an area was affected by the spillage. Local authorities are surely best placed to define where in their localities the effects of oil have cleared or remained.
The position of the shellfish industry is different and is potentially much worse. I understand that because of the very cold weather, some species have not been taking much food, so the effects of the oil are and will be much less than expected. Only information from monitoring will show whether that view is correct. Only monitoring will show whether the phenomenon is short term, whether the position will change when the water warms up and whether it applies to all shellfish or just to some species. Experience from the Braer incident suggests that heavily affected shellfish take a very long time to recover. The ban on whelks and scallops after the Braer incident has remained in force for three years.
Although research is under way through Plymouth and Bristol universities, we do not know the background level of oil pollution in shellfish sites in seas throughout Europe. It is, therefore, difficult to say what levels will be deemed safe and what levels will be deemed normal. That is a critical point. We did not know that information before the disaster occurred so it is impossible to know what its effects will be. The base level against which we need to make comparisons is not available.
On 22 February, for example, the Milford mussel beds were open, although the total hydrocarbon levels in the mussels were far higher than the levels in mussels in the beds at the Burry inlet on 28 February. Those beds were closed under the prohibition order when the total hydrocarbon levels were just over six parts per million per kilogram of fish. As the Burry inlet happens to be
within the arbitrary boundary that the Welsh Office has drawn, although it has no visible oil in it, it is covered by an order that prevents the people of the northern part of my constituency from undertaking their commercial enterprise. There is no indication that the total hydrocarbon level in the cockles there poses any risk to public health.
I would like the Minister to tell the House this evening what the critical levels are which, if found in samples, will pose a public health risk. What are the levels below which shellfish or finned fish are deemed to be safe and fit for human consumption? Unless we know that, we can have no confidence in the order and can see it only as a catch-all, precautionary measure which is not based on scientific evidence. People should know that what they are eating is not safe because the critical levels have been exceeded.
Such considerations demonstrate how important it is to individuals and to the local economy that regulations are flexible enough to respond to changing information. Local authorities and the South Wales sea fisheries officers are already monitoring and gathering information. They are much better placed to respond to changed situations in their own area than are the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I have raised a number of important points to which, I hope, the Minister will be able to respond. The point about the critical level is especially important and I hope that the Minister can tell us about the sample results that demonstrate clearly that it is dangerous to eat any fish or shellfish covered by the prohibition order.
I trust that the closure order will be lifted as soon as it is possible to agree standards and procedures with the local authorities. As more information becomes available, everyone involved will be better able to understand what is happening in different areas to different species. At that point, local authorities are best placed to adapt to and to put in place the necessary fine-tuning to protect public health, public confidence and the local economy.
I am pleased to have this opportunity, for the first time in my parliamentary career, to address the House from the Dispatch Box. I am grateful to you,Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on an excellent performance. Unfortunately, it may well be his last performance at the Dispatch Box. He displayed again his great skill and his command of detail. The House will be lessened when he is not with us after the next general election.
I will try to confine my remarks to the order. I am sure that if I stray you will pull me back quickly,Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, it is mainly my constituency that has been affected by the Sea Empress disaster and by the prohibition order.
As I mentioned when I intervened during the Minister's speech, I am especially concerned by the delay that has occurred, for whatever reason. We had an explanation from the Minister. The Scottish Office acted only 77 hours after the Braer had run aground in conditions that were extremely severe, with gales and huge seas. Was anyone able to carry out scientific monitoring to decide whether

there was a risk to health within 77 hours of the vessel running aground? I have read the debate that followed the imposition of that order. Everybody congratulated the Scottish Office on its alacrity in dealing with an extremely severe problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower has said, the order was a precautionary measure which was confirmed later by scientific evidence.
I put on record my thanks to the fishermen of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and West Glamorgan, who imposed their own voluntary ban as quickly as possible and then pursued the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to get a proper prohibition order in place as quickly as possible.
There were two reasons for that action. First, the fishermen wanted to try to restore order to the situation. Secondly, once order had been restored, confidence could be given back to the market for products from areas not affected by the oil. Progressively, following testing and monitoring, areas in the periphery could then establish their own clean bill of health for the products that they wished to market.
We can already see the problem. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs heard evidence this morning about prawns caught between Aberystwyth and New Quay in Cardigan bay, on the periphery of the area affected by the order. Those prawns were not accepted for sale in the market. We are talking not only about products caught within the prohibition area, which was purely voluntary until 28 February, but about products caught some distance away. That is a major problem.
Within hours of the news getting out that the Sea Empress had run aground on 15 February, the people marketing whelks from Carmarthen Bay were informed by the Koreans—their only market—that they did not want the product for fear that it was tainted. The same then happened to products shipped to France and Spain; the market dictated that it did not want products from west Wales and, I understand, from Wales in general at one stage, although I understand that that problem has started to improve.
The Minister has not been able to tell us—at least, not in response to my intervention—why it took from 15 February until 28 February to impose the order. In his opening remarks, he mentioned the consultation that had taken place between the Welsh Office and the fishing organisations and industry. He repeated that statement in a memorandum that he sent to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee for our investigation into the matter, from which I quote briefly. In paragraph 21 of that memorandum he states:
Throughout the period before the placing of statutory restrictions, there was close and continuous liaison with the fishing industry about adherence to their self imposed ban on fishing which enabled the Department to have full confidence that the action being taken ensured the consumer was fully protected.
That is contrary to evidence that we received this morning from Mr. Phillip Coates, a director of the south Wales sea fisheries committee. When Mr. Coates was asked by the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, what consultation had taken place between the Welsh Office and the sea fisheries committee on that issue, the answer was "zero". There was no consultation whatever about the imposition of that prohibition with the officers or the members of the sea fisheries committee.
More than 90 per cent. of fishermen in west Wales are members of the Sea Empress Fisheries Claimants Association. Their view was faxed to me at 11.42 am on 28 February. I quote from it:
The MAFF Office has offered all the assistance that can be given to the Welsh Office but we understand they have rejected it. The association need a definitive answer to the closure problem as soon as possible as our members are becoming a little angry to say the least. Could you please contact the Welsh Office and lend your weight to our problem.
The week before I received that fax, I had received a communication from the Sea Empress Fisheries Claimants Association, which I met that Friday afternoon. As a result of that meeting, I contacted the private office of the Minister in MAFF with responsibility for fisheries, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), to urge him to institute a prohibition order to restore confidence to the market and protect the rights of the fishermen who were currently exercising a voluntary ban.
I was informed that the Minister was not available, but I explained the position and staff agreed to pass the message on to him at the earliest opportunity. I telephoned his office when I returned to London on Monday morning and was told that he was not available but that we could meet after the vote at 10 o'clock. That is what I did, and I was assured by the Minister that he would do what he could to ensure that order was restored. He agreed with me that the best way was to put a prohibition order in place as soon as possible. He informed me, however, that it was not his responsibility but the responsibility of the Welsh Office.
On Tuesday morning, I contacted the private office of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). Unfortunately, he was not available until about 4.30 on Tuesday afternoon. I spoke to him just before he went into the Standing Committee on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. I was assured by him that the argument had been accepted and that the prohibition order would be in place as soon as possible.
I received no information the following day until I saw the Minister in the precincts of this place and asked him what was happening. He said that he would check and find out what was going on. He understood that the Secretary of State was dealing with it. That was at 4.50 pm. I then received a phone call from a member of the Press Gallery, informing me that the order had already been put in place. As you will see from the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is timed 4 o'clock that afternoon.
I can understand that at times there may be lack of communication between Departments such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office, but it is beyond me to believe that we had such had communication within the Welsh Office between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State. I understand that the Secretary of State signed the order at approximately 2.30 pm, for imposition from 4 o'clock onwards, but obviously no one had bothered to tell the Under-Secretary of State what was going on. That exemplifies one of the problems that we have had in getting the order properly in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower made a point about leisure angling. To help my constituency and the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for

Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Gower and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), I hope that everyone, at least from Wales, will try to restore the reputation of that most beautiful part of our country. The problem is that while the order is in force leisure angling is prohibited.
This morning I learned that an international sea angling competition scheduled for September, in which 25 boats would have been involved and for whose competitors several hotels would have provided accommodation—in other words, an opportunity to restore confidence and put some money back into the local economy—had been cancelled. That will cost my constituents many thousands of pounds, because most of the competitors had intended to stay in the Tenby area and charter boats from Tenby, Saundersfoot and Milford Haven.
I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower for the leisure angling part of the prohibition order to be removed as soon as possible. The case was well made by my hon. Friend. Everyone accepts that people who enjoy angling as a sport or as a leisure pastime know what they are doing and there would be no suggestion of those fish products finding their way on to the market. We can at least begin the process of tackling the obvious problems that the tourist industry and the leisure industry generally will suffer as a result of the spillage.
The Minister rightly alluded to compensation problems, despite assurances given by the insurers about the payment of hardship funds and compensation. I am sure that he departed from his prepared text, as I am aware that he met members of the Sea Empress Fisheries Claimants Association before the debate. As he knows, we received evidence from them this morning and in the early afternoon and we learned that there are clearly serious problems in relation to hardship payments and general compensation.
What worries me especially, even though I have met the insurers, is that people who are rightly starting to make claims seem to feel that, apparently because there were problems with the payment of claims following the Braer disaster, the insurers may well be taking a different view and acting differently in the way that they treat claims arising from the Sea Empress disaster. I quote from an article that appeared in The Times on 24 February in which Mr. Michael Thorpe, deputy director of Skuld—the insurers of the Sea Empress—said:
Unfortunately we created a claims mentality"—
referring to the Braer—
which led to a number of spurious and over-inflated claims.
Our experience with the Braer incident might make us more reluctant to pay out claims for the Sea Empress in full even if we are satisfied that claims are bona fide. This is because we do not want to find in three years' time that we have paid too much too early".
The experiences so far of the few people who have submitted their claims, and the reactions of the insurers to those claims, bear out the fears that the insurers are following a far more tight-fisted policy in relation to justified and reasonable claims made by those who have suffered consequential loss as a result of the Sea Empress disaster. I am assured by the insurers that that is not the case, but the experiences of the people making the claims seem to bear out those fears.
I am sure that the Minister and Labour Members would agree that that is wholly and utterly unacceptable. People who have suffered consequential loss should be


compensated in full as quickly as possible. Their claims for hardship should also be dealt with as quickly as possible. Let us not forget that it is five weeks since the Sea Empress ran aground and literally no one in the fishing industry has been paid anything in that time.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I apologise to the Minister for my absence during his speech. The issue of consequential loss is important. There is no doubt at all that the losses of fishermen in Ceredigion—who are unable to sell their fish even though it may not be contaminated—are a consequence of the Sea Empress tragedy. I trust that there will be no cavilling about this and that the insurers and the compensation fund will recognise this as a consequence of the tragedy and that these people will be properly eligible for compensation. I trust that the Government will press this issue very strongly.

Mr. Ainger: I do not know whether that intervention was meant for me or for the Minister, but I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, particularly as I referred to the example of fish caught off his constituency between Aberystwyth and New Quay. Undoubtedly, the fishermen and the processor have suffered consequential loss. I took this point up with the insurers and the international pollution compensation fund administrators and I was assured that so long as documentation was provided, the consequential claims would be met.
We are concerned, however, that there appears to be a climate of restriction—certainly this was the experience in the first few days of dealing with the claims—in which relatively small percentages are being paid of what are reasonable claims. Obviously, there is still a large amount of hardship that has not so far been tackled and which needs to be tackled as quickly as possible.
I shall not detain the House much longer. The accident of 15 February turned into a disaster on the night of 19 February. Unless we have a truly independent inquiry, I fear that people in my constituency will believe that there has been a cover-up. It is clear from evidence that is now widely available that the decision-making process in relation to the salvage operation included officials from the Coastguard Agency and officials from the marine pollution control unit. This and other issues must be addressed to restore confidence in west Wales and in the energy industry as a whole. The only way in which that can be done is by an independent inquiry—ideally under Lord Donaldson—so that confidence can be restored and we can get to the bottom of this tragedy.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall be brief as my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) have dealt with the problems fully. I shall raise one or two points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, this is a draconian order and I do not know whether it is necessary. Having listened to my hon. Friends, I am not so sure, but I can understand that a Government of any political persuasion would feel it best to err on the side of caution and safety in these matters.
In looking at the order—I am not making a pedantic lawyer's point—I find that the language does not fall very easily. Indeed, looking at the parent Act, it is not clear

whether it is always a suitable vehicle. As I understand it, however, the order is the same as the one used following the Braer incident. I will quote the preamble, if that is the right term. We are told that the order is
in exercise of the powers conferred … of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985".
There is then a curious long sentence which states that the Secretary of State may be of the opinion
that there exists or may exist circumstances which are likely to create a hazard to human health through human consumption of food"—
I understand that, but the next part is very odd—
and that in consequence food which is derived or may be in the future derived from fish … may become unsuitable for human consumption".
I thought that that referred to fish, but having read it again it obviously does not. I do not think that fish is food derived from fish—fishcakes or fish fingers, perhaps, but not fish. I do not know why there is this difficulty. Very often when drafting is not clear, it betrays a difficulty in dealing with the problem. The order goes on to say that no one should fish at all, even those who fish merely for leisure. The way the preamble is drafted is rather strange.
In relation to fishing for recreation, the order will have a considerable effect. There is perhaps not so much fishing in my constituency as there is in Pembrokeshire, the Gower peninsula or the constituency of Carmarthen. As the Minister will know, people fish commercially for bass and for their own pleasure. This will be a draconian order, not only for those who fish commercially but for those who fish for pleasure in the Burry Inlet and beyond.
What worried me most was the Minister's use of the word "hardship" when he discussed the insurance fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has dealt with this issue, and perhaps the Minister did not just mean hardship. Hardship is not loss of profit, as I understand it: it is a subjective matter. Why can the Minister not say "claims by commercial fishermen for loss of profit"? We all understand that a claim has to be proved, but it should not be too difficult to prove that there has been a loss.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure fishermen and those who process shellfish in my constituency that if they can show a loss of profit—it should not be too difficult to show a dip over a six-month period from the disaster, as supplies may be obtained from other places—they will be compensated.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I agree with my right hon. Friend. That information is available. The sea fisheries committee licenses cockle gathers, so their numbers are known. MAFF has information about whelks, for example. On the basis of the information that the Departments already have, therefore, there is no reason whatever not to speed up the process of compensation.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the South Wales sea fisheries committee is aware of every cockle that is lifted from the Burry inlet. The information is available, so people should be allowed to prove their claims.
I hope that the Minister was not saying that only claims for hardship would be allowed. Where did he find the word "hardship"? Is it from some part of the agreement


that I have not read? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that claims for loss of profit will also be allowed and that it is not just a matter of hardship.
That is all that I have to say as my hon. Friends have covered the matter. It is a draconian order and I hope that it will be lifted fairly soon. I hope that the Minister will come back to the House regularly to tell us what is happening and when he is likely to lift the order.

8 40pm

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. It is very much an all-Dyfed affair. I note that the Minister was brought up in Llanelli and that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was born in my constituency and lives there now. Everyone who has spoken tonight represents Dyfed constituencies.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower on his speech from the Front Bench. He has worked diligently, as he did in the Select Committee, and is a complete master of his brief and knowledgeable about fisheries and the problems that we face in Dyfed. I should also put in a word for the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who has a unique background in the oil industry.
Although Dyfed is only a small part of Britain, North sea oil destined for the British market caused last month's catastrophe, which severely threatened its economy. I echo the calls throughout Dyfed and among Opposition parties for a full and independent public inquiry into the initial incident and, in particular, into what happened during the following four days which turned the incident into a disaster. Only a full public inquiry can ensure that it does not happen again.
Broadly speaking, I welcome the order in that it safeguards the future of the fisheries market—it is important to our economy and food safety in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the order draws a rather arbitrary border. The initial incident occurred just off Milford Haven, but the wind direction carried its effects down the south-west coast. Very little thought seems to have been given to the boundaries.
The order will affect the cockle industry in Laugharne in my constituency. In the past three or four years, there has been a remarkable revival of the cockle industry there as the cockle beds have shifted in Carmarthen bay. I do not understand such matters, but the industry is now worth well over £1 million a year. The prohibition order will mean the loss of several million pounds in shellfish sales this year.
I had an exchange earlier with the Minister about salmon fishing and angling in the Towy. I am glad that he has corrected his earlier comment. I understand that the order applies to the entire length of the Towy and that no fishing will be allowed—even for leisure—in the next few months, until the order is lifted. I am sure that the Minister will keep the situation under constant review.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: My hon. Friend mentioned the cockle industry in Laugharne. The sampling of hydrocarbon contamination of cockles at Llansteffan shows that, when the order was introduced, hydrocarbon

contamination was at the maximum, so there is no scientific justification whatever for the introduction of a ban on the harvesting of cockles there. That is an example of the problems that are likely to occur under the order.

Mr. Williams: There are many such anomalies. The order is a sledgehammer. It is a crude measure that bans everything from that area of sea water. It may be difficult to make exceptions, but my hon. Friend has raised an important point.
There is also a problem in relation to leisure angling on the Towy. I have a letter from the chairman of the Carmarthenshire Fishermen's Federation pointing out that the Towy has always been a good river for salmon and sewin. It is one of the best salmon rivers in Britain. It was his understanding that the ban on fishing covered the river as far as Abergwili. He wrote:
My advice to rod fishermen on non-tidal stretches, whose season was due to open shortly, is to hold off until we have some results from the studies being made by the NRA.
He was advising his members to introduce a voluntary ban on fishing until the situation was clearer.
Will the Minister keep under constant review the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Pembroke and for Gower, because the leisure fishing industry is an important part of our tourism industry as well as being extremely popular among my constituents? There are fishing clubs in Llandeilo, Cross Hands, Llandyssul and Carmarthen. Fishing is extremely popular; it is much more popular than membership of political parties. Hundreds of people enjoy a day's fishing. Sometimes they catch nothing at all, but it is a leisure pursuit and what they catch is generally for their own consumption. I ask the Minister to keep matters under review and consider the points made by my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) mentioned the definition of consequential losses within the terms of compensation. I hate to think about the effect on the finances of the fishing clubs in Llandeilo, Cross Hands and Llandyssul this year. Any losses they and the NRA incur in respect of fishing licences must be reimbursed from the oil compensation fund.
My final point concerns how long the order will remain in force. The Minister said in his introductory comments that that is difficult to anticipate. I am glad that he did not limit it to a short period. After the Chernobyl accident, we were told that restrictions would apply in north Wales for only a few weeks. Those weeks became months, the months became five years and now, 10 years later, some farms in north Wales are still restricted. I would rather that the Minister erred on the side of caution instead of making promises that he cannot keep.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower referred to the scientific basis for a ban—a ban can be justified only upon clear scientific grounds. Crude oil is not incredibly toxic. We do not like the taste of it, but it is generally indigestible. I accept that it contains toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but we are talking about relatively low levels. I hope that the Minister will show discretion, as my hon. Friend requested, and that the ban will be lifted as soon as public health requirements allow and studies by environmental health officers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other responsible bodies suggest that it is permissible.

Mr. Richards: We have had a good debate this evening about a very serious subject. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and others have made constructive speeches, and we have benefited from their close understanding of the issues and from their local knowledge. I was intrigued to see the hon. Gentleman lead for the Opposition, as he comes from Tumble, which is landlocked. I wondered how much he knew about sea issues—but clearly he has done some research.
They say that a crisis can bring out the best in everyone; west Wales can be proud of the way in which its representatives have dealt with the incident from the beginning. As Opposition Members have said, I number myself among those with connections with west Wales. Seafaring on the Irish sea has a long history that is full of great, magnanimous and even heroic deeds. I am reminded of the giant, Bendigeidfran, who it is said walked across the Irish sea pulling the Welsh forces behind him in their ships. Superhuman endeavours have also characterised the weeks following the Sea Empress incident.
I pay tribute to those who have worked tirelessly and ceaselessly to help ease the ill effects. First, I commend those who controlled and supervised the emergency—often performing beyond the call of duty. Secondly, I record my appreciation for the level of co-operation received from local authorities and other public bodies. Thirdly, I thank the fishermen who selflessly refrained from fishing in order to safeguard their industry and the general public. Last—but certainly not least—I commend those voluntary organisations, Crown forces and volunteers comprising men, women and young people who did not hesitate to respond to the emergency. We thank them for their dedication.
Many Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Members for Gower and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams)—said that the exclusion area is arbitrary and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) described the closure order as draconian. I assure Opposition Members that the order is not arbitrary, but based on scientific advice. I think that I have time to tell hon. Members a story—which I am sure they will appreciate—to prove that the order is not arbitrary.
As I read the order and looked at the list of species that would be affected by it, my eyes fell upon the words "lemon sole". I lived in Llanelli as a boy and I remember well how the whole family—all seven of us—would sit down to lemon sole for Saturday lunch. My mother bought it from one of the fish stall holders in Llanelli market. I know the gentleman from whom she used to buy—he had come from eastern Europe some time during or following the war—and I always marvelled at his dexterity in filleting.
My mother used to dip the lemon sole in breadcrumbs before cooking and then serve it with parsley sauce, peas, mashed potatoes and a knob of butter. I assure hon. Members—and anyone else who cares to listen—that lemon sole from the Burry inlet in Carmarthen bay that is cooked in that manner is better than any lemon sole from anywhere else in the world.
I shall now deal with some of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members. If I do not succeed in answering their questions in the short time available, I shall write to them as I know that these issues concern

them and their constituents. I must inform the hon. Member for Gower that public health authorities do not cover hydrocarbons or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in their programmes. He said that we did not need to impose an order. The fishermen have told us that they accept that such an order is necessary.
I thought that some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks bordered on the irresponsible—which is not characteristic of him. He must realise that the Secretary of State has a duty to look after public health and to ensure that consumers do not eat fish that could be injurious to their health. I was surprised to hear him refer to anecdotal evidence in support of his case, whereas the case for the closure order is scientifically based.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: rose—

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is dying to say something, so how can I not give way?

Mr. Wardell: I refer the Minister to only two issues. First, as to his point about the arbitrary line, he must now demonstrate that samples taken from immediately outside that line have considerably lower levels of contamination than those taken from immediately within it. Secondly, he must inform the House what critical levels of hydrocarbons found in fish and shellfish make them injurious to public health upon human consumption. If he is able to do that, I shall be a much happier man.

Mr. Richards: I assure the hon. Gentleman that sampling will continue inside and outside the exclusion area, including those parts to the east of his constituency to which he referred earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a judgment, based on the available scientific evidence and advice that he is given, about the appropriateness of the exclusion order that is currently in force. I shall come back to the issue of levels of hydrocarbons a little later, but the level of hydrocarbons found varies from species to species and depends on which part of the creature's body is sampled.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no difference in the level of pollution one inch either side of a line drawn in the sea, which does not have a wall running under it? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the effectiveness of the boundary will be reviewed and that the Government will take prompt action if it proves necessary? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate how long it will be necessary to keep the zone in force to protect health and the reputation of the Welsh fishing industry, which is vital?

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the line. It was not drawn arbitrarily, but on the basis of scientific evidence. I assure my hon. Friend that sampling, especially, and computer modelling will continue to take place inside and outside the exclusion zone, as has been done already.
One other issue seems to confuse Opposition Members. I must put them straight. They all seem to suffer from the illusion that there was a public inquiry after the Braer incident. That is not the case.
On the question of recreational angling, I repeat that the purpose of the order is to ensure the safety of consumers. My right hon. Friend and I cannot possibly take risks in that area. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has a duty to look after the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Ainger: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. Richards: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has had a good bite at the cherry already.
I cannot see how angling would be policed. One Opposition Member said that the fish would not necessarily end up on dinner plates, but in most cases they would end up on the dinner plates of the angler's family or friends.

Mr. Ainger: I am somewhat puzzled. The Minister said that the order was precautionary and intended to protect the consumer, so why has he only just introduced it? If that was the real issue, the order would have been imposed as soon as the vessel hit the rocks and started leaking oil in such large quantities. It does not make any sense to introduce the order for the rivers that feed into the area almost a week after the original order that covers a huge area. If the order was precautionary, it would have been introduced sooner.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman has mugged up on oil, but not on angling. He should know that migratory fish are difficult to find in February, so it was not possible for samples of oily migratory fish to be found in the middle of February. They took rather more time to find. The hon. Member looks astonished. Perhaps he should mug up on angling.
One Opposition Member—I forget which one—referred to the district fisheries inspector. The district fisheries inspector is an official of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so MAFF has a locus in the matter. My right hon. Friend, obviously, takes advice from MAFF.
Another Opposition Member said that the Department had not consulted the industry, and cited the sea fisheries committee. The committee wanted information to answer queries from fishermen, because it is not the committee's role to represent the fishing industry. The Department has from an early stage copied information to it on a regular basis and continues to do so. I can tell the right hon. Member for Llanelli that loss of profit is a matter for compensation, but insurers will consider claims on that ground after hardship claims.
In the short term, we will continue to monitor carefully hydrocarbon and PAH in fish, crustacea and shellfish. As levels become safe—something that we shall

determine in close consultation with the Department of Health and the directorate of fisheries research—we shall progressively lift the ban. There are no safe limits for hydrocarbons in fish and shellfish.
As with the 1993 Braer incident, samples of fish and shellfish from commercial harvesting areas were collected during the early stages of the spill, and they will be analysed to establish background values. Those data will form the basis of establishing safe concentrations, to protect consumers of fish and shellfish from affected areas. In the medium and longer term, we will explore with the industry and its representative bodies how we can ensure that the trade and consumers appreciate the quality of Welsh fish.
I want the seas of west Wales open for fishing again as soon as possible, and I want consumers of Welsh fish near and far to be confident, when that fish returns to the market, that it is clean, healthy and appetising. In short, I want to do the best that we can for the local fishing industry. I know from the comments that have been made this evening that all hon. Members here share that aim. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) Order 1996 (S.1., 1996, No. 448), dated 28th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

PETITION

West Bank Park

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. William Dixon Smith, supported by letters from Mr. and Mrs. Witt and Mr. Lodge, who are also constituents of mine.
The petition concerns a proposal to build housing association homes on land formerly used as a horticultural nursery adjacent to West Bank park in York. The petition is lengthy, but I know that it will be printed in full as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings and that I am supposed only to read the prayer, which is as follows:
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House will earnestly recommend that York City Council reflect upon its decision to ignore the entreaties of so great a number of good citizens, and resolve to allow the future of West Bank Park to be decided according to the findings of a Public Enquiry.
The petition is signed by my constituent, William Dixon Smith.

To lie upon the Table.

Castle Cement, Clitheroe (Cemfuel)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I welcome the opportunity to raise the important issue of the burning of Cemfuel by Castle Cement at its works in Clitheroe. I have invited the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who chairs the Environment Select Committee, to speak in the debate, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it is right that they should.
We have the benefit, of course, of the Government's strategy document, "Making Waste Work", but unfortunately in this debate we do not have the benefit of the Government's considered response to the Environment Select Committee's report on the burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns, which was published about 10 months ago, on 7 June 1995. Perhaps I should explain my interests, as Clitheroe is not in my constituency; it is in Ribble Valley, which lies alongside Pendle, and the two constituencies are separated by the vast bulk of Pendle hill. But, of course, smoke and dust, like the wind and the rain, do not respect lines on maps. I have an interest, as the Member of Parliament next door, for environmental reasons. Indeed, on 10 January this year, Pendle's services committee, in my local authority, considered a report on the issue, so people's concerns about the burning of Cemfuel extend well beyond Ribble Valley.
The Library of the House tells me that the exact composition of Cemfuel—the generic name is secondary liquid fuel—is commercially confidential. However, it is chiefly based on distillation residues from the solvent recovery business, Solrec, blended with solid and liquid waste from the paint, plastics, chemical and car industries, with old solvents that are no longer in use. It can contain metals such as mercury and thallium and chlorine compounds, which may generate dioxins when burnt, although there is a limit, I am told, on the metal content that can go into cement kilns.
It is clear that we are talking about a real witches' brew in Cemfuel. I have no idea what else may or may not be in it, but I have a list of the substances that are present in the recycled liquid fuel that is burnt at Blue Circle's Weardale works. They include methanol, which is found in windscreen cleaners; acetone, a varnish remover; propyl acetate, commonly found in adhesives; nitrobenzines, dyestuffs; dichloroethane, in anti-knock petrol; styrene, in plastics, and so on. It is a terrible cocktail of ingredients. The issue that is at the centre of this is whether all that can be burnt safely.
Secondary liquid fuels are used by the cement industry because they are cheap. Instead of paying for coal or coke, the producers of hazardous waste pay the cement industry to take their waste away for burning. That makes tremendous economic sense for the cement industry, which tells me that it is struggling very hard to fend off competition from other countries in the European Union—from the Greeks, for example, who apparently have a highly developed cement industry—and from all corners of the globe. That infuriates the companies that

run and operate purpose-built incinerators. They have told me that the burning of hazardous waste in cement kilns is banned in Denmark, Finland and, in effect, the Netherlands. Castle Cement is partly owned by the Swedes, and in Sweden, mercury, thallium, bromine, iodine and fluorine are all banned from combustion in cement kilns. But not here, apparently. The Minister will want to come back on that point.
In this country, secondary liquid fuels are burnt at Cambridge by Rugby Cement, and at Ketton in Leicester and at Clitheroe by Castle Cement. Other plants are giving it a trial. What is happening in the nation's cement kilns will be the first real test of the new Environment Agency, which opens for business on 1 April.
According to Fred Pearce, writing in tomorrow's edition of New Scientist, chemical wastes are now being burnt permanently, or are on trial, in about half the country's cement works. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is to become part of the new Environment Agency, is constantly reviewing what it may or may not be acceptable to burn in cement kilns. It is constantly reviewing national and international guidelines. Apparently, it is a moving target. It is feared that not just Cemfuel—secondary liquid fuel—will be going up the chimneys. In due course it may be joined by sewage sludge, shredded tyres, oil sludge and PCBs, although Castle Cement has told me that there is no question of polychlorinated biphenyls being burnt at Clitheroe.
Last September I travelled from my constituency to Ribble Valley, having been invited to tour the cement plant by the plant manager, Peter del Strother.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I do not recall receiving a letter from the hon. Gentleman saying that he would be visiting my constituency.

Mr. Prentice: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not observing the parliamentary proprieties on that occasion. It was my mistake.
The plant manager and his colleagues were very courteous and helpful, and showed me the cement kiln. It was the first time that I had been in a cement plant. The kiln was an enormous metal structure, 100 or more yards long. It revolved slowly, generating a tremendous amount of heat: if I got too close, I had to back off. Inside the kiln, the temperature reached about 1500 deg C. I was taken to a viewing platform and invited to look through the spyhole just behind the lower part of the kiln, where the flame was. It was like the fires of hell. I thought that nothing could survive such an inferno—that everything would be vaporised, neutralised and made safe. Subsequently, however, I bumped into scientifically qualified people who knew much more about the subject than I did, and what they said gave me pause for thought.
I have raised this issue not just because of my own concerns, but because constituents have pressed me to secure answers to the questions that they have raised, so far without success. Judy Yacoub and her colleagues in the Pendle branch of Friends of the Earth have taken a close interest, and people in Clitheroe have also been in touch with me, although I have always made it clear that I should not be regarded as a surrogate Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley.
I should also mention Mary Homer, who seems to have lived and breathed the issue for years—literally, in fact, because her house is in the path of the plume from Castle


Cement's chimney and is regularly enveloped in it. People in Clitheroe are worried about the plume "grounding", and about its effect on health. The main group of campaigners is known by the acronym RATS, which stands for Residents Against Toxic Substances. Its members are concerned about the fact that Cemfuel is being burnt without proper regard to the health of people living in the vicinity. Their January newsletter records that Ribble Valley council's environment committee passed a vote of no confidence in HMIP in November last year. The council did that because of HMIP' s alleged
lack of commitment to stop pollution from Castle Cement".
It beggars belief that a responsible local authority could pass such a resolution about another public authority, HMIP.
In March 1995, Ribble Valley council's environment and social services committee recommended that HMIP be told that the council could not support the continuation of the burning of Cemfuel at Clitheroe until the following measures were put in place:
there must be reductions to below the 'permitted levels' for all elements which are discharged from the stacks and to landfill
there must be research and urgent action taken to prevent the regular grounding of the plumes from both chimney stacks
there must be a rigorous analytical system in place to undertake specified analysis every 3 months in order to obtain more data on the burning of Cemfuel, and
there must be a properly planned programme of environmental impact analysis set up by HMIP in the area surrounding the Castle Cement works.
The committee took that view because of the information that had appeared on the public register. That information compared stack emissions and increases in emissions following the burning of Cemfuel, with emissions from the combustion of coal. There was a 72 per cent. increase in ammonia, a 54 per cent. increase in particulates, which are sooty particles—I am not entirely sure what these things do to the human body, but they do not sound attractive—a 534 per cent. increase in chromium, a 54 per cent. increase in lead, an 819 per cent. increase in nickel, and so it goes on. Ribble Valley council was obviously concerned that that stuff was spewing out of chimney stacks at Castle Cement and that council tax payers would be breathing it all in.
The RATS January newsletter quoted two scientists, Dr. Vyvyan Howard from Liverpool university and Professor Paul Connett. I do not know how wide its distribution was, but the newsletter said:
These two eminent scientists both say that burning hazardous waste in cement kilns is a very dangerous practice and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
When I read that newsletter, I thought that it was a bit alarmist and that, if I lived in the Clitheroe region, I would feel uncomfortable and anxious. I wanted to dampen anxieties and try to reassure people, but with such newsletters circulating in the Clitheroe region, it is clear that people are hyped up about the threat to their health and to that of their children.
On 10 January, the Minister told me that, over the preceding 21 months, HMIP had received approximately 440 complaints against Castle Cement,
some of which allege ill-effects".

On the same day, he told me that HMIP had sought advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, from East Lancashire health authority and from the Department of Health. After seeking that advice, HMIP concluded that it was
satisfied that there does not appear to be any evidence that the use of cemfuel is any more harmful to health than the use of coal"—
except perhaps the smell.
I have a clipping from the Clitheroe Advertiser and Times of 22 February. The banner headline reads:
Demand to stop 'plume' nuisance".
The strapline says:
Children experience a 'bad egg' smell".
The story goes on:
As a thick plume dipped over Chatburn, a village resident demanded immediate action to 'stop the nuisance'.
Mrs. Elizabeth Gardner was reported as saying:
The plume was so severe and lasted so long that I was concerned about the children playing in Chatbum Primary School yard".
She goes on:
I accept that Castle Cement is trying to deal with the problem of plume-grounding long-term, but at the end of the day nobody was able to prevent or alleviate the effect of the plume-grounding on our own health and our children's health".
Later in the article, she says:
My daughter, who had been playing out in the yard at Chatbum Primary School, told me the children had been discussing what the `bad egg' smell was all day".
The article goes on:
Castle Cement's works manager, Mr. Peter del Strother, said it had been a gusty day and that he had seen occasional plume-grounding incidences. 'In high winds the frequency is higher than it normally would be. It obviously was possible that there were incidents of plume-grounding … it is perfectly safe.'
Then he added:
February was always a difficult month due to the turbulent wind conditions.
Tough luck for anyone playing in the playground at Chatburn primary school in February, because of the turbulent wind conditions. The article goes on to talk about the authorisation.
I have the minutes of the meeting that took place between RATS, the borough council, HMIP and Castle Cement on 4 December 1995. It quotes Donald Boardman and his colleagues from RATS. I quote it because we are talking about ordinary people, living in the area, breathing this stuff and experiencing it, who are concerned about their children. The minutes of that meeting say:
It is generally thought that the plume grounds far too often and this is felt across the Ribble Valley Community. People also believe there are adverse effects on their health, such as sore throats, headaches and dizziness. People think Castle Cement is trying to hide something by not publishing the formula of the fuel.
The minute goes on:
We feel there has been inconclusive monitoring. Cemfuel constitutes advanced technology energy production but has monitoring been equally advanced? The inconsistent monitoring has damaged trust with the public and the credibility of Castle Cement. Is the equipment working at less than optimum? How do we know the kilns can burn cemfuel efficiently?
Those are all the questions that come cascading out of the mouths of people who live in the area.
There were problems with the monitoring. An earlier newsletter from the same organisation in September, when the National Physical Laboratory was monitoring air quality in the area, referred to the two worst incidents that occurred in September, when the monitoring equipment was never where it was meant to be. The two worst incidents during the first week of the monitoring appeared to be in Park avenue, when the lab was at Moorlands school, and at Worston, when the lab van was at Chatburn, and on both occasions the hotline did not work. That was the monitoring carried out by the National Physical Laboratory, which will inform the decisions that the Government and HMIP will take about whether Cemfuel should continue to be burnt.
The RATS people also complained about the role of the East Lancashire health authority, which covers that area. They refer to Dr. Stephen Morton, who has been complaining that the health authority does not have the resources to monitor public health in the Ribble Valley.
For this Adjournment debate, Castle Cement produced a briefing note. It helpfully sent a copy to me and to other hon. Members who are interested in the matter. That briefing note says:
the local health authority give cemfuel 'a clean bill of health' and the Department of Health also give cetnfuel a clean bill of health.
That may be the case, but I should like to see the evidence to justify the health authority and the Department of Health giving Cemfuel a clean bill of health.
On 6 November last year, I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether he would commission studies into the health effects of burning Cemfuel. On that occasion, I was told by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), that the Department of Health would contribute to the Government's response to the Environment Committee's report—the one that 10 months later we do not yet have—but that the Department had no plans to commission any studies on the subject. That is absolutely astonishing. On 30 November last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told me that HMIP had yet to complete its consultation on health issues. Presumably it was waiting for the results of the investigative monitoring of the National Physical Laboratory, to which I have already referred.
One Clitheroe resident, who is an active member of RATS, Linda England, wrote to Dr. Stephen Morton because she was concerned about the incidence of asthma. He replied on 31 January, saying that he was not in a position to release raw data on asthma incidence in the Clitheroe area of Ribble Valley, because the number of hospital admissions was small and patient confidentiality might be compromised. He also said that the health authority might be breaching the Data Protection Act. For good measure, he added that data relating to general practice are the property of the general practitioner.
It is astonishing that, as far as I am aware, East Lancashire health authority seems to have made no serious attempt to collect data from GPs in the area. One would have thought that it would have been simple to contact GPs and ask them about the number of prescriptions for inhalers and so on, and whether the incidence of asthma had increased, but it did not happen. Indeed, Dr. Morton said in his letter to Ms England:
The evidence available to the health authority does not indicate that the current use of Cemfuel leads to any greater health risks than there were previously when coal alone was used at Castle Cement.

He went on, however, to add the caveat:
We have never said that the processes at Castle Cement do not carry health risks, and we certainly recognise the discomfort which poor dispersal of the plume may cause especially to people with chronic ill health.
He concluded by saying:
only a major national study is likely to give meaningful data on the degree of the health risks associated with fuels used in the cement making process. To conduct such a study requires a political decision to commit resources from the Department of the Environment and/or the Department of Health.
That is what we have never had, although thousands of people living in the Ribble Valley area are crying out for someone in authority, someone with responsibility—the Government or one of the other public bodies—to commission a study on the alleged effects on health, but it has not happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish chaired the Environment Committee when it published its report on 7 June last year. Of its nine recommendations, the ninth—and I would say the most important—was that the Government should commission research to establish one way or the other whether there is any causal connection between burning Cemfuel and any rise in ill health. It has not been acted on. Without that study, people are relying on anecdotal evidence, some of which is fairly alarmist.
I was at another public meeting in Clitheroe—again, I apologise if I did not inform the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—in September, at which Dr. Van Steenis, a retired GP who used to practise in south Wales, spoke. Many people, including those from Castle Cement, feel that Dr. Van Steenis is a discredited witness because he is so emotive about the issue. In fact, at that public meeting, what he said was so over the top and alarmist that the people who came up to me afterwards were very nervous after listening to him. I take what he says with a pinch of salt—we do not intend to alarm people, but we simply want to get at the facts. He said that asthma rates in villages down wind of Castle Cement had risen from zero in 1991 to 9 per cent. last year, and he found as many as 15 per cent. of asthma cases close to the plant. I do not know whether his figures are right or wrong, but I pass them on for what they are worth.
I mentioned Blue Circle Cement. If I may be allowed to digress for a moment, I should like to mention Dr. Irving Spur, whose general practice covers three surgeries in the upper valley, close to the cement works. He looked retrospectively through patients' records, selecting those with a diagnosis of asthma. He found a correlation between asthma incidence in children between the ages of five and 12 and their postcodes. Two per cent. of such children living west of the cement plant had asthma, and 7.1 per cent. of those living to the east of the site had asthma. The figure rose to 12 per cent. for those living at a distance of four miles from the plant and to 9 per cent. for those at a distance of eight miles away. I do not claim to be an expert on these matters, but I know that the causes of asthma are many and varied, and such findings are worthy of serious research.
Given all the anxieties that I have enumerated, it is astonishing—not only to me and my constituents but to the constituents of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—that the Government could not get their act together to reply formally to the Environment Committee's report, especially as the Committee's recommendations were expressed in fairly trenchant terms.
I have mentioned the health effect, but the Select Committee made eight other recommendations. As I said, we hope to get a response within the next few weeks, which is one of the reasons why I raised the issue tonight. On 5 December last year, I asked the Minister when we could expect a considered response to the Select Committee's report. I was told that a full response would be published early in the new year. We are now 25 per cent. of the way through 1996 and we still do not have that response. When the Minister replies, I should like to know why there has been such an inordinate delay.
It is always possible to look down both ends of the telescope. People living in Clitheroe next to the plant have one view, but Castle Cement has another. I would not be paraphrasing Castle Cement unfairly if I said that it feels that many of the anxieties expressed have been whipped up and are almost hysterical. It is keen to reassure people and to try to do something about the very hostile public mood.
In fact, I had a meeting in the House on 22 February with Jim Stevenson, the chief executive of the Cement Association, and Ian Walpole and Richard Boarder from Castle Cement. They were here to talk to the Labour party's environment committee, which I chair. Also present were Roger Lilley and Alan Watson from Friends of the Earth, who wanted to put their opposing point of view. The gulf between the two views was wide, and I did my best to see how it could be bridged.
The people from the cement industry wanted Friends of the Earth to visit Ribblesdale in Clitheroe, to see the cement works and speak to the people involved. For its part, Friends of the Earth was upset that Castle Cement was playing its cards very close to its chest, citing in its support academics such as Professor Vincent Marks of Surrey university, but not persuading Professor Marks to make available the research data that led him to state that there is
a lot of misplaced anxiety among the people of Clitheroe … Despite convincing and repetitive evidence that dioxins emissions are no greater in Clitheroe when Cemfuel is burned than when coal is used alone, the dangers to health from dioxins have been so exaggerated that many local people continue to believe and repeat fallacies based on unjustified extrapolation and experimental animal data".
I should like the cement people to invite Friends of the Earth to the cement works and I should like Friends of the Earth to take up Jim Stevenson's invitation. I cannot understand for the life of me why Castle Cement cannot persuade Professor Marks, who obviously has some sort of consultancy with it, to make available his research data to an academic peer group, to find out whether they stand up.
The briefing note circulated by Castle Cement, to which I referred earlier, enumerated the advantages of burning Cemfuel. It said that it reduces emissions, fossil fuel use and greenhouse gases, moves waste up the hierarchy, maintains competitiveness and secures jobs. That is important. I do not want my opposition to be misrepresented in any way. Jobs, especially in the current climate, are important and we must safeguard them. We have to support firms that are expanding employment, but not at the expense of people's health.
I recognise that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has given Castle Cement until the end of next month to identify a solution to the problem of plume grounding,

with a remedy to be in place and effective by the end of the year. Many people say that there have been too many variations and too much bobbing and weaving. Information that should have been available has not been made available.
The right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), in 1994, when he was an Environment Minister, wrote to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, hinting—he did more than hint; he made it explicit—that there were commercial considerations and that Castle Cement had invested much money in burning Cemfuel. While such matters were not supreme, they could not be lightly set aside.
There are also the concerns of what I might call the opposition—the people who run incinerators, who feel that they have one hand tied behind their back, that there are double standards, that cement kilns are being allowed to burn stuff that they should not be allowed to and that there should be a level playing field. They think that purpose-built incinerators are being disadvantaged and say that it is only a matter of time before the vast majority of UK waste will be burnt in cement kilns. They ask what will happen then to one of the UK's leading environmental technology industries.
It is a long and tortured tale. There is masses and masses of technical information, but some of the simple reassurance that people want has not been forthcoming. I lay the blame at the door of Castle Cement, which could do more than it has, and of East Lancashire health authority, which has been remiss. Lancashire county council has not replied to the report on the monitoring that was undertaken in September. It has had lead boots on this occasion. Most of all, I blame the Government, who have primary responsibility for reassuring people that what they breathe in Clitheroe will not be injurious to their health.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to join my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in this debate and I congratulate him on raising an important issue.
I speak tonight basically on behalf of the Select Committee on the Environment. This time last year, the Committee was lobbied hard by some of the companies concerned with reprocessing and incinerating waste. They argued that they were being unfairly treated as a result of the Government allowing the cement manufacturers to use secondary waste fuel in their plants. As soon as the cement manufacturers discovered that we were being lobbied in one direction, they started to lobby us in the other direction.
Last summer, the Select Committee decided to hold a short inquiry into the issue. It was an effective inquiry and we produced a useful report. As a result, the Government gave us a short response because at that stage, the Environment Bill was going through the House and we had an effective debate. However, the Government then promised that there would be a more substantive answer to our report. I am afraid to say that we are still waiting for it. I hope that the Minister can make it clear tonight when the report will be produced and that it will not be a matter of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". I hope that it will come up with some recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle has made the case for his plant. There are nine other places where secondary fuel is being burnt so the matter is of considerable concern in many places.
I turn first to the case made by the waste processors—companies such as Shanks and McEwan, Cleanaway and Leigh Environmental. They argue that they have had to install high-quality waste reprocessing plant and incinerators. They argue that they have to install that plant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Adjournment debate is pretty specific. It is concerned with the burning of Cemfuel at Castle Cement, Clitheroe. We cannot have a debate that spreads through the whole Select Committee report. The hon. Gentleman has asked a fair question in relation to the ninth recommendation, but we cannot go through all the others.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am sure that you appreciate that if the fuel is not being burnt at Clitheroe, it is available for burning in the other incinerators which have been purpose built—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether I appreciate that point or not is irrelevant. All that I am interested in is protecting the business of the House, which at this time is exclusively concerned with the burning of Cemfuel at Castle Cement, Clitheroe. That is the sole subject for debate.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I make the point that if the fuel is not being burnt in Clitheroe, it is available to be burnt elsewhere. If the fuel is burnt at Castle Cement in Clitheroe, it reduces the viability of the waste processing industry. It also makes it difficult for that industry to regain its capital investment in extremely expensive plant. Like many others, the waste processing companies are concerned about what goes on at Castle Cement in Clitheroe.
Equally, the cement manufacturers, including Castle Cement, made the point that if they have to pay for coal or other fuels, the price of cement goes up. If the price of cement goes up in this country, it is possible that people will start to buy cement from abroad, which would not be in the best interests of jobs in this country. I do not have too much sympathy with the cement manufacturers on that point because when the Select Committee asked them whether they could tell us what difference allowing them to use secondary fuels made to the price of a bag of cement, they could not tell us the figure. They said that it was commercially sensitive. I should have thought that, if there were a difference between the cost of using that fuel and the cost of importing it from France or from anywhere else where cement is made, it would be in their interest to make that information available.
There are two sides to the argument—that of the cement industry and that of the waste processors. There are also the interests of the local community in Clitheroe.
If I had to live close to a cement factory, I should not be very happy, whatever it burnt. At Clitheroe there is considerable concern about the plumes, especially when the plant has to be stopped due to a malfunction, because

that is when the plumes descend. It appears that there is a high concentration of nasty particles in the descending plumes. There is the suspicion that whereas if the plant is operating at its highest efficiency, all the toxic material is burnt and there is no problem, as the plant cools down there may not be complete combustion of some dioxins and other material. That causes local people considerable anxiety.
That poses the question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle did, if the plant closed, would local people be pleased? Obviously, some would be; others would lose their jobs and be unhappy. It is extremely expensive for an elderly plant such as the one at Clitheroe to be brought up to modern standards.
I shall be brief because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) wants to speak, but I urge the Minister to tell us what will happen about the medical inquiry.
It was unfortunate that Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State in the Department of the Environment, wrote to me as Chairman of the Select Committee, more or less giving me some assurances and then Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution took no notice of those assurances. I know that if one reads the Minister's letter carefully, one can just about wriggle out of it and say that HMIP did not go totally contrary to the words in the Minister's letter, but it certainly went against the spirit of that letter.
I urge the Minister to tell us when we shall receive the Government's response, so that we can set at rest the minds of people in Clitheroe and people living close to the other nine plants, so that we may see what the future is for waste incineration and reprocessing in this country and so that we may have some way in which people can take decisions about the future of cement manufacturing, its pricing and so on, with some certainty about what is happening.

9 52 pm

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am usually happy to speak in debates in the House, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but not tonight. This is a subject that is very dear to me, with which I have been involved since 1992. In my opinion, there has been gross misconduct and a gross infringement of etiquette by the very fact that the debate is taking place. If the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) believes that he can simply drop me a line to say that I would be able to speak if I so wished in a debate on the subject of a cement kiln in my constituency, affecting my constituents, he has another think coming.
I shall write to Madam Speaker on that matter, as the hon. Member for Pendle has admitted at least twice that he visited my constituency before this debate, without contacting me, and has raised the issue.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose—

Mr. Evans: No.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Did the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) not visit my constituency and look at Padiham power station and make comments without notifying me?

Mr. Evans: I accept that, and I am extremely grateful that the hon. Gentleman is here. What I did not then do


was initiate an Adjournment debate about Padiham power station. The hon. Member for Pendle has become involved in a gross infringement.
As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) knows, when we were discussing the issue of the burning of orimulsion—an issue in which all our local authorities were involved—I went to Padiham because Read and Simonstone neighbour Padiham power station. The boundary could not be any closer. One might stand in Simonstone and see the towers of Padiham power station, with the smoke coming across the boundary. It could not be any closer than that.

Mr. Pike: rose—

Mr. Evans: No, I will not give way again because I want to deal with a number of issues.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose

Mr. Evans: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has already grossly infringed the etiquette of the House by raising the issue in this way. I want to make a few points tonight, so perhaps he can intervene on someone else. I am extremely angry about what he has done. I am sure that the people of Pendle will be more than interested in this. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can play politics in this issue, he has another think coming.
The people of Pendle probably have a lot of issues—perhaps even with the local authority—that they want the hon. Gentleman to investigate and would be amazed that he has taken so much time involving himself in an issue in my constituency, in which he knows that I am intensely and closely involved. He should involve himself with issues that solely affect his constituency.
I will not go into the specifics of the issue. I have written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on several occasions—in fact, we have had a massive amount of correspondence on the issue—and I have sought a meeting with him and with Earl Ferrers on this issue. I have held and chaired two public meetings in my constituency which were attended by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and a number of local bodies. The first meeting was absolutely packed and the second was not so packed, but the interest was certainly there from the people of Clitheroe and the surrounding area.
There has been great anxiety over the way that Cemfuel has been introduced into Castle Cement, and I cannot say that I have been happy with that. I certainly have not been happy with the way in which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has handled this issue from the beginning. I was not happy with the delays that seemed to take place over whether Cemfuel was going to be fully authorised—that process seemed to take ages. I understand that they would wish to ensure that the investigation was done fully and properly, that they wished to go into the full ins and outs of the issue, and that they wished to consider it carefully before coming to a conclusion. However, it seemed to take for ever. The anxiety in the area was further fuelled by that delay.
There are a number of issues in relation to the burning of Cemfuel at Castle Cement. The first is the burning of Cemfuel and the second is plume grounding. Testing was carried out last summer as to the effects of the plume grounding, and I believe that we have made some advances towards eradicating those problems. We have had the testing and, if it had not been for the burning of Cemfuel, this problem may have carried on for quite some time—it certainly had been going on for a long time in Clitheroe, as I learnt when I first became a Member of Parliament in 1992.
I am grateful to Mary Horner, one of my constituents, who has seen me several times in my surgery. I have also met her when I have met the Residents Against Toxic Substances. I have been in receipt of various videos that have proved that the plumes ground in Clitheroe. I understand, from my talks with Castle Cement—even as late as last Sunday when I met Peter del Strother, the works manager at the Clitheroe base—that it has to put forward plans by next month that show how they will prevent the plumes from grounding. Although work has been done by Castle Cement-15 m was added to one of the chimneys—it has not solved the problem; it has only ensured that the plume that grounds is dispersed further on. It is still a problem for the area.
I pay tribute to Residents Against Toxic Substances for taking an on-going interest in the subject. They have kept me fully informed. I have been to several of its meetings at Lynda England's house—indeed, I have taken questions back for the Minister and I have ensured that I passed on the results.
Residents Against Toxic Substances is an extremely reasonable body. The vast majority of its members do not want Castle Cement to close because it is so important to the local economy. It provides several hundred jobs. I suspect that some of them live in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Pendle and for Burnley.
The money that comes into the local economy is important to all our constituencies, but when it comes to making a choice between health and the economy, as I said in a previous debate when Cemfuel was being burnt elsewhere, I would always choose health. It would be ridiculous to put economic considerations before the health of our youngsters and everyone else who lives in the area. I would welcome much fuller health analysis of the effects not just of burning Cemfuel in a particular area—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Evans: I would welcome a fuller health analysis of the impact of burning Cemfuel and plume grounding. It is a vital issue for me. [Interruption.] I know that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) may not be interested, but we are discussing a cement kiln in my constituency that concerns the vast majority of my constituents, although tonight's debate is not the right vehicle for debating it.
My constituents are also interested in a number of issues outside the burning of Cemfuel and plume grounding. Mention has also been made of waste incineration plants. Some of my constituents have a financial interest in what is happening at Castle Cement and other cement kilns around the country.
I spoke at the structure plan meeting in Clitheroe on Friday. I was adamant that the Castle Cement plant should not be turned into a waste incineration plant by the back door. If the company wishes to go down that route, it should apply for full planning permission from the local authority so that the case can be judged on its merits. I would fight it tooth and nail. If we were to start again, Castle Cement would not get permission to set up on its present site. However, it is there now and provides jobs to the local economy. I cannot look back 60 years. We have to accept that the plant is there. We have to make as best a job of it as we possibly can and look for ways of improving health and the environment.
I wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. I wanted the Committee to consider the impact of burning Cemfuel. I look forward to a full report from the Minister on the points that were raised in the excellent Select Committee report. I hope that that will arrive sooner rather than later, now that the results of some of the investigations have been returned to the Department.
I am also interested in commercial confidentiality. I would like to see the ingredients of Cemfuel to be made public so that everybody can see what is happening. The sooner that happens the better it will be, not only for Castle Cement but for any other areas where there is burning of secondary fuel. We need to reassure the public. I have always stated that I am not an expert on these matters. I have always relied on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is an independent body, to carry out the analysis and the testing.
I spoke to Peter del Strother, the works manager at Castle Cement, on Sunday and he told me that there is far more testing and monitoring at Castle Cement than at any other cement kiln in the United Kingdom because of the interest that has been raised. I am sure that a great deal of information has been collected for the Minister and HMIP to consider.
In April, Castle Cement has to produce its proposals to prevent the plume from grounding. I understand that it is considering a number of possibilities. Castle Cement must join HMIP to find the most effective way of preventing the plume from grounding and ensuring that they stop the smell and any pollution coming from the chimney. They must reassure the public that there are no harmful emissions.
I know that people will inquire about the cost. Whatever it is, it will be worth while if it prevents the plume from grounding, stops the smell and allays public concern as to what is coming out of the kiln. If Castle Cement and HMIP are satisfied that they have found a solution to the problem—for example, introducing scrubbers into the plant—but it will cost millions of pounds, then so be it.
I want to ensure that a solution is found as quickly as possible: I do not know why we must wait until the end of December. I hope that HMIP will be able to use its influence over Castle Cement to ensure that, once a solution is found, work on the plant will start immediately. The recent lengthening of the chimney by 15 m has not solved the problem. I am sure that it cost the company a considerable sum, but it did not prove effective. I hope that Castle Cement will reassure the public that it will take speedy action as soon as a solution is announced.
The area must be cleaned up. I know that there is another problem involving Castle Cement and quarrying. I am sure that it will shortly make another application to begin quarrying across the road. I opposed its initial quarrying application because I felt that it would be detrimental to the local environment. The Ribble Valley is one of the most beautiful areas in the United Kingdom. It attracts a considerable number of tourists and it is the area to which, allegedly, Her Majesty the Queen would like to retire—I hope that that will not occur for a long time. We want to attract many more tourists to the Ribble Valley, but we cannot do so if there is a deterrent to their visiting and staying in the area.
We must clean up the area. Peter del Strother has assured me that, once the current quarry reaches the end of its useful life, the company plans to fill it with water and restore the natural habitat which will attract more tourists. However, we must ensure that any other quarrying applications by Castle Cement are appropriate to the area. Although Castle Cement has enjoyed good relations with the people of Clitheroe, because of the way in which Cemfuel was introduced into the area and a number of other occurrences, that good will has been lost. It must win back public confidence, and finding a proper solution to the plume grounding in April is a good place to start.
I have sought a meeting with the Minister to discuss the matter. He said that he will be happy to have such a meeting as soon as Castle Cement and HMIP have met and found a solution. We shall talk through the various problems and residual difficulties that the people of Clitheroe may have regarding the existence of Castle Cement in my constituency and its continuing operations. I look forward to that meeting, but, more than anything else, I look forward to Castle Cement's introducing measures that will reassure my constituents that nothing going into the cement kiln and coming out of the chimneys will harm them

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the debate and to set out the Government's approach on this important subject. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) set out his views in some detail. I am sure that he is generous enough to acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has played as the Member who represents Clitheroe and the rest of the Ribble valley. My hon. Friend has taken a thoroughgoing and close interest in the subject and has already made numerous representations to my Department and to others on many of the subjects that the House has covered this evening, especially on plume grounding.
The subject is also of interest to another of my hon. Friends, the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), who cannot be here tonight. He is interested in the subject from a different direction because he represents the constituency in which Cemfuel is manufactured by the company Sotree, to which the hon. Member for Pendle has adverted. My hon. Friend also has a keen interest in the subject and has made representations to the Government.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made his contribution and set out his interests as the Chairman of the Environment Select


Committee. Understandably, he raised the question of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which was also of concern to the hon. Member for Pendle. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish set out fairly the circumstances which appertained when the Select Committee's investigation was first carried out. As he told the House, the Government made an initial response and he is now waiting for the full and considered response from the Government. He will have that response very soon.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Under-Secretary define "very soon"?

Mr. Clappison: I am sure that question has cropped up before. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his interest in ensuring that there is a proper system of regulation for potentially polluting processes. I am sure that he will understand that the Government want to give a full and considered response to the Select Committee's report. I know that the Select Committee has taken a great interest in the subject.
The system of regulation is a good starting point for me to talk about how cement works are regulated. In 1990, the Government introduced a major new initiative in the regulation of industrial processes—the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act singles out complex industrial processes with the potential for significantly polluting the environment and places them under a particularly rigorous regime known as integrated pollution control. I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is familiar with that. In England and Wales, such processes, which include cement works, are regulated by HMIP.
Integrated pollution control incorporates two main aims of the Government's policy for environmental protection. We aim, first, to ensure that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—known by my favourite acronym, BATNEEC—are used to prevent or minimise the release of substances prescribed under the 1990 Act and to render harmless any such substances which are released and, secondly, to consider harm to the environment as a whole.
The 1990 Act seeks to ensure public confidence by making the regulatory process transparent and open to public scrutiny and comment. Copies of the application, of any authorisation or monitoring returns required by the authorisation and, where appropriate, notices of any formal enforcement action taken by HMIP are placed on public registers. The public have full and open access to those registers.
BATNEEC aims to balance the costs of abating pollution against the benefits to the environment of achieving such abatement. BATNEEC does not require or authorise HMIP to seek to reduce environmental impact to nil, whatever the cost. The object is to render the impact to nil, or reduce it, so far as that can be done without imposing excessive abatement costs. It is important to recognise that the responsibility for delivering environmental protection lies with the operator. It is for the operator to conceive, design, build and operate his process in such a way as to meet the requirements of the law.
I refer next to the particular question of the cement industry and its use of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns. Cement is made by mixing limestone or chalk with clay minerals in defined proportions, then heating the mixture to high temperatures. Cement manufacture is an energy-intensive process in which energy costs represent a large percentage of variable costs.
The cement-making process incorporates several features that make it suitable for burning substitute fuels. For example, it is a continuous process and has high thermal stability suitable for destroying organic materials. Materials are heated for a long time, and heavy metals are trapped in the cement clinker in a non-leachable form.
Cemfuel is a trade name for a type of secondary liquid fuel that is blended to a specification developed by Castle Cement. Secondary liquid fuels are normally a blend of residues from solvent recovery operations and used solvents that cannot be recovered for recycling. They are flammable and, although they contain some pollutants that require control, make excellent fuels.
Cement companies in the United States of America and some European countries have been using waste solvents as a partial substitute for conventional fuels, to reduce energy costs. That practice was started in this country by the Castle Cement plant at Clitheroe in 1992. Subsequently, all major UK cement manufacturers have sought to adopt the practice.
Government policy on the burning of substitute fuels in cement and lime kilns was detailed in a parliamentary answer on 23 June 1994, which made clear the Government's policy that there would be no more such trials than necessary to allow HMIP to determine BATNEEC; the operator must provide satisfactory data on baseline operations before trials commence, which must include emission data and kiln operating data; all trials must be to an agreed schedule; if any trial is adversely affecting the environment, it must stop; HMIP must agree the specification for substitute fuel in advance; and the operator must provide continuous monitors for particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and oxygen.
Having outlined those important considerations, I refer to the specific question of the burning of Cemfuel at Clitheroe. The use of Cemfuel at the Clitheroe plant started in 1992. At that time the plant was registered under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It is important that the House bears in mind the history of the matter. That registration allowed the company to use Cemfuel in combination with coal. Regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 required all cement plants to seek authorisations under that legislation by the end of February 1993. Castle Cement duly applied and, after statutory and public consultation, was authorised by HMIP in November 1993 as an existing process. The use of Cemfuel was included in the authorisation as, at that time, the available information from monitoring data indicated that no harm was being caused to the environment.
In July 1994, HMIP developed the parliamentary answer of 23 June into a protocol for the testing of SLF in cement kilns, which was to be applied to all plants undergoing trials with secondary liquid fuel. Although Castle Cement, Clitheroe, was entitled by law to continue to use SLF under its authorisation, HMIP required the company to adjust its operations, so that it could carry out


an emission monitoring trial that, as far as practicable, met the requirements of the protocol. HMIP made it clear that it would review the authorisation once the results of the emission monitoring were known. The company used the monitoring results to assess the potential effects that the use of SLF might have on the environment and reported that assessment in December 1994.
HMIP placed advertisements in the local newspapers to announce the opening of a consultation period on the continuing use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe. The public were invited to comment. In addition, documents produced by the company were sent to the local council, the local borough council, the National Rivers Authority, the local waste regulation authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the local health authority, the Department of Health, and others.
HMIP carried out a detailed assessment of the monitoring results and found no significant change in the releases of the major pollutants: sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides with or without Cemfuel. There appeared to be an increase in particulate releases when burning Cemfuel, although the concentrations found were within those currently authorised. No change was found in the levels of dioxins released, which are very low whichever fuel is used. Because of the general anxiety about the effect of dioxins on human health, HMIP carried out a detailed study of the fate of emitted dioxins, which covered transfer to plants by deposition, to herbivores in grazing and then to humans via the food chain. It showed that there was no significant difference between coal and coal plus Cemfuel.
Overall, the releases of heavy metals from the process were found to be low and of little environmental significance, although some individual metals were found at higher levels, and some at lower levels, during the burning of Cemfuel. The overall conclusion was that the use of Cemfuel does not result in any net adverse environmental effect.
MAFF analysed milk, as part of the human food chain, from a number of farms in the vicinity of the Clitheroe plant. The results showed that the levels of dioxins, heavy metals and arsenic were within the range normally found in milk in the UK.
The public had expressed concerns about the perceived ill-health effects caused by the use of Cemfuel. HMIP sought advice from MAFF, East Lancashire health authority and the Department of Health on human health effects from the burning of Cemfuel. The advice that it received, which was publicly announced, stated that, first, it is unlikely that there will be any unacceptable effects on the human food chain arising from the use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe; secondly, there is no evidence of increased admissions to hospitals, increased prescribing of anti-asthma therapies or increased levels of asthma and cancer in the area as a result of burning Cemfuel—indeed, the standard of health in the area is rather better than in some other parts of Lancashire—thirdly, it is unlikely that the ambient level of any of the pollutants released from the burning of Cemfuel are responsible for the increase in complaints of eye and upper respiratory tract irritation recorded in the area; and, fourthly, there is no scientific evidence relating to the emissions to support

the assertion that the use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe is likely to be more harmful to human health than the use of coal.
I now turn to a separate concern about the plant at Clitheroe—the problem known as plume grounding, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley is familiar. He has made representations on this subject and has taken a close interest. This phenomenon is where the plume from the plant chimneys may reach the ground prematurely in certain weather conditions. There were practically no complaints about this at the time of the original authorisation. However, as the local public opposition and concern about the use of Cemfuel has built up, the number of complaints about plume grounding have increased.
Plume grounding is not caused by Cemfuel but rather is a consequence of the cement plant and its interaction with local weather and topography. However, there is public concern about plume grounding, and in response to a high number of complaints about the site, HMIP commissioned the National Physical Laboratory to perform continuous monitoring of emissions from the plant when burning Cemfuel in areas that are subject to plume grounding. That exercise was conducted for 24 hours a day over the period 7 August to 1 September 1995. As a feature of the exercise, NPL scientists operated a hotline service through which members of the public could report incidents and so provide an opportunity for the NPL to monitor on-going plume grounding incidents as they were in progress.
The full report from the NPL was placed on the public registers. The results showed that accepted air quality limits were not exceeded on any occasion, but the NPL did report some eye and chest irritation effects on a number of occasions.
I have already mentioned that HMIP sought advice on the health effects of burning Cemfuel from MAFF, East Lancashire health authority and the Department of Health. On the separate issue of plume grounding, those organisations advised HMIP that it appeared possible that concentrations of sulphur dioxide in the grounded plume were sufficient at times to induce eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. That seemed to be independent of the fuel used, as the stack emissions—and hence the ground level concentrations—did not differ between the two fuels, coal and Cemfuel. People with asthma might expect to be more affected than others, but ailments such as headache and nausea could not be attributed to substances recorded in the emissions.
HMIP takes plume grounding seriously. The variation to the Castle Cement authorisation issued on 23 January requires the company to advance firm proposals to solve the problem, with the aim of implementing them by the end of the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has taken a close interest in the problem, and in what is to be done about it. Properly designed engineering solutions for large industrial plants take time; in this instance, the tight schedule imposed on the company reflects the urgency that HMIP attaches to the problem. Depending on the company's success in remedying it, the inspectorate will then consider whether the authorisation should be varied yet further, or even rescinded.
In allowing the continued use of Cemfuel at the plant, HMIP has imposed strict requirements on the company. They include a reduction in the percentage of Cemfuel


that can be used, and a lowering of the limits for heavy metals and sulphur. There are also individual limits on the amount of chromium, lead and nickel in the Cemfuel. The use of Cemfuel is forbidden if the plant is working at low loads, when dust emissions are high or when the electrostatic precipitator is not working fully. Limits have been placed on all major pollutants, and, in particular, those on dioxins are the same for chemical waste incinerators.
This is not an easy subject, but it is important. I hope that in the short time allowed to me I have been able to convince the House of the priority that the Government attach to having an overall, proper national system of regulation, and to the specific problems of the Castle Cement plant in Clitheroe. The Government are determined to achieve a satisfactory environmental solution to all the problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.